MWC_LifeBeginsAt40 Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC I love healthy, informative, constructive and enlightening discussions I realize we do not all think alike. Life would be utterly boring if we did. Cheers I'm glad you stated this before I gave you crap for bashing several of us over the head with your bible. I do understand these are your opinions based on your spiritual beliefs and all those books you read (and u know what I think of that). But please don't judge those of us who have different beliefs. It's fine if you want your next encounter to be with someone who shares your beliefs. As you said, life would be boring if we all came from the same mold.
ConfusedInOC Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by MWC_LifeBeginsAt40 I'm glad you stated this before I gave you crap for bashing several of us over the head with your bible. I do understand these are your opinions based on your spiritual beliefs and all those books you read (and u know what I think of that). Kindly point to a post I've made that "bashed you over the head" with a bible. As far as the books, yes I recommend them but if you feel I am bashing you with it or forcing you to read them, that's your perception but is not reality. But please don't judge those of us who have different beliefs. It's fine if you want your next encounter to be with someone who shares your beliefs. As you said, life would be boring if we all came from the same mold. I'm not the judge of you or anyone else, nor do I think I should be (or even want to be). That falls solely in the eyes of God.
JenDoe Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC That falls solely in the eyes of God.
katiebour Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Food for thought. There are many things in life that started out as a need. And humanity has showed we like to over indulge in things that are pleasurable. But because it was pleasurable humanity has allowed it to become adictive and has abused its intended purpose for self gratification. Examples: With food, you got to obesesity With medication you got drug addiction Love and procreation you got nonachallanet attitude towards sex. And because of this, each one used no longer the way it was intended, the negative effects were created. Food you got Cornerary Disease Medication you got Overdoses Casual Sex you got STDs. In each one of the cases, they are treated as an illness so having said that, shouldn't the use of sex for merely personal pleasure, be treated as an illness as well? Interesting point ManDammit- but you're overgeneralizing. It is possible to engage in sex without becoming addicted- as they say, moderation in all things. I think you're right in that when you become obsessed with sex to the point that it interferes with your daily life, you have a problem. The same is true with food or medication. But "sex for merely personal pleasure" is a long way off from "obsessed with sex to the point where it interferes with your daily life." As far as condemning sex for pleasure, or claiming that sex should be for the purposes of procreation only, that hearkens back to the attitude of the Catholic church several hundred years ago. Let's examine this just a bit: If sex is for the purpose of procreation only: Then no one should have sex except with the intention of becoming a parent, and as soon as pregnancy is established, all sexual relations should be severed. Infertile men and women should never have sex, since they can't have children. Women who have reached menopause should cease having sex. Gay people should never have sex, because they can't procreate. All forms of sexual contact other than coitus should be discontinued because they do not lead to procreation. No masturbating- ever. If all of the above are true, then the need for birth control becomes moot. Anyway, I dunno about you, but any of the above sound pretty ridiculous to me. But that is my opinion. If you'd like to live your life that way, more power to you. I'll go on enjoying my sex life- you can limit the number of times you have sex for the rest of your life to the number of kids you plan on having. Heck, why bother with sex- you could have your wife artificially inseminated and avoid the whole business altogether. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water- it's possible to engage in safe, fun, responsible sex without becoming a sex addict. By the way, I had sex last night with my date (3rd date) for the first time- and it was GREAT! I didn't even know they came in that size... Take care.
ImaManDammit Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 First off let be start by saying I neither endorse nor live by the opinion I expressed. Originally posted by katiebour Interesting point ManDammit- but you're overgeneralizing. It is possible to engage in sex without becoming addicted- as they say, moderation in all things. I think you're right in that when you become obsessed with sex to the point that it interferes with your daily life, you have a problem. The same is true with food or medication. Agree. I'm with you so far. But "sex for merely personal pleasure" is a long way off from "obsessed with sex to the point where it interferes with your daily life." True, but we eat to survive, and we take medication to maintain our health or cure our ailments. If we eat a bag of chips instead of an apple knowing that chips are not good for us, we do it for merely for self graitication than for the need to survive. The same can be said for drugs. Smoking a joint, when not perscribed by a physician is medically harmful yet we do it, for self gratification. A bag a chips and smoking a joint can rarely interfere with your daily life, unless addicted, but isn't it still wrong? So taking sex out of its context, isn't that the same thing? As far as condemning sex for pleasure, or claiming that sex should be for the purposes of procreation only, that hearkens back to the attitude of the Catholic church several hundred years ago. Let's examine this just a bit: Ah see, this is where the confusion lies. So we remove the statement that is reserved for procreation only, and that it is wrong to have sex simply for self gratification when not in a loving relationship. Does that change the argument? Dating doesn't count, there needs to be some sort of commitment between the two people involved. Anyway, I dunno about you, but any of the above sound pretty ridiculous to me. But that is my opinion. If you'd like to live your life that way, more power to you. I'll go on enjoying my sex life- you can limit the number of times you have sex for the rest of your life to the number of kids you plan on having. Heck, why bother with sex- you could have your wife artificially inseminated and avoid the whole business altogether. Its interesting. One of the the things we talked about was when aruguing this point, that the people who had a contrary belief to what was proposed, they would end their very solid arugument with a "nuts to you" type comment, and then a dig. Here's the nuts. By the way, I had sex last night with my date (3rd date) for the first time- and it was GREAT! I didn't even know they came in that size... And there's the dig. I'm happy for you, and the reason I am is because I for one and no one's keeper or moral consciousness.
katiebour Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 we eat to survive, and we take medication to maintain our health or cure our ailments. If we eat a bag of chips instead of an apple knowing that chips are not good for us, we do it for merely for self graitication than for the need to survive. The same can be said for drugs. Smoking a joint, when not perscribed by a physician is medically harmful yet we do it, for self gratification. A bag a chips and smoking a joint can rarely interfere with your daily life, unless addicted, but isn't it still wrong? So taking sex out of its context, isn't that the same thing? It's true that eating an apple is better for you than eating a bag of chips, and it's definitely better to stay away from harmful substances. But sex itself is hardly harmful. There are myriad health benefits to making love. You might say that eating a bag of chips is not the best choice you could make, but I wouldn't call it "wrong." It's not a crime, hehe. And it would certainly be better to eat a bag of chips than to not eat at all and starve to death. Marijuana and other illegal drugs are "wrong" because man-made law dictates that it is so- if you were in a country where they were legal, would their use be "wrong?" Just arguing for the heck of it, by the way- personally I am very opposed to the use of illegal drugs. Its interesting. One of the the things we talked about was when aruguing this point, that the people who had a contrary belief to what was proposed, they would end their very solid arugument with a "nuts to you" type comment, and then a dig. Here's the nuts. Hehe, well I agree with the "nuts to you" statement. You can do whatever you want- you haven't changed my point of view, and so while I recognize your right to your point of view, I'm certainly not required to endorse it. You do what you want, and I'll do what I want. And that last part wasn't a dig- it was more like bragging hehe I'm just happy and I wanted to share it- and brag a bit too So, coming back to your main point: It is wrong to have sex simply for self gratification when not in a loving relationship. What's wrong with self-gratification? If you and your partner agree on a mutually enjoyable sexual relationship in addition to any other relationship you may be having, as long as both of you are consensual adults and are honest about your history and any medical conditions you may have, where is the harm? Think of it as a workout buddy Anyway, I'm enjoying this conversation- please don't take any of this in a negative way. I'm looking forward to your response Take care
ImaManDammit Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 Originally posted by katiebour It's true that eating an apple is better for you than eating a bag of chips, and it's definitely better to stay away from harmful substances. But sex itself is hardly harmful. There are myriad health benefits to making love. That can be said of any physical activity. Granted it gives new meaning to the axiom no pain no gain. In this case I think we tend to look at the health benefits as the secondary nature rather than it primary purpose of a feeling of euphoria. Almost as a way of rationalizing it. Similar to when a person says, "I drink wine with dinner because I love it, but hey, it has health benefits too." There is a study, if I can find it, between the sensation of euphoria when stimulated through thought and non-physical means versus phsyical and externally induced euphoria. The summary was that the phsyical euphoric situation almost had a negative effect after the period of euphoria waned than the one that was established through thought, non-physical means. In essence acting like a downer, which then create potential for addictive tendancies. So taking that a step further does that say without a true loving relationship, sex is in fact an addictive act in its very nature and that things that are addictive are generally not postive? You might say that eating a bag of chips is not the best choice you could make, but I wouldn't call it "wrong." It's not a crime, hehe. And it would certainly be better to eat a bag of chips than to not eat at all and starve to death. Its also interesting so are you equating lack of sex similar to starving to death? True. Its not wrong, but not necessarily the right choice either. So if we go back to the exmaple of sex outside of loving commited relationship is that for lack of a better term, wrong? Marijuana and other illegal drugs are "wrong" because man-made law dictates that it is so- if you were in a country where they were legal, would their use be "wrong?" Just arguing for the heck of it, by the way- personally I am very opposed to the use of illegal drugs. Very good point. Hehe, well I agree with the "nuts to you" statement. You can do whatever you want- you haven't changed my point of view, and so while I recognize your right to your point of view, I'm certainly not required to endorse it. You do what you want, and I'll do what I want. You're right and nor I am trying to get peoples endorsement. What's wrong with self-gratification? If you and your partner agree on a mutually enjoyable sexual relationship in addition to any other relationship you may be having, as long as both of you are consensual adults and are honest about your history and any medical conditions you may have, where is the harm? Think of it as a workout buddy Yes, but it we are looking as sex as not part of a commited and loving relationship, so if thats ok, then why isn't prostitution legal? The person is obviously seeking sefl gratification and we have two adults who mutually agree to having sex. So be it if its based on a dollar figure, but I don't really see the destinction then. As far as I know, have sex with a prostitute is still consider wrong, or is it only wrong because this country doesn't allow it like your arguement above? Anyway, I'm enjoying this conversation- please don't take any of this in a negative way. I'm looking forward to your response Good I'm glad that its being taken in the spirit its given.
katiebour Posted June 27, 2005 Posted June 27, 2005 In this case I think we tend to look at the health benefits as the secondary nature rather than it primary purpose of a feeling of euphoria. Almost as a way of rationalizing it. Similar to when a person says, "I drink wine with dinner because I love it, but hey, it has health benefits too." Yep. Obviously most of us don't embark on a sexual relationship for the purposes of losing weight So I agree with you. There is a study, if I can find it, between the sensation of euphoria when stimulated through thought and non-physical means versus phsyical and externally induced euphoria. The summary was that the phsyical euphoric situation almost had a negative effect after the period of euphoria waned than the one that was established through thought, non-physical means. In essence acting like a downer, which then create potential for addictive tendancies. So taking that a step further does that say without a true loving relationship, sex is in fact an addictive act in its very nature and that things that are addictive are generally not postive? Interesting question you pose here- but let's look at it from a different angle. You say "sex without a true, loving relationship can be addictive," but honestly, isn't sex in, a true, loving relationship addictive as well? Perhaps even more so, since you have a feeling of emotional closeness as well as physical gratification? Perhaps that's why so many of us have ONS or "rebound" relationships after a breakup that include sex- we've become addicted to a loving, sexual relationship, and since building the emotional component of a relationship takes time, we seek to feed our addiction as best we can, as quickly as we can by having sex? Its also interesting so are you equating lack of sex similar to starving to death? Yes, I have certainly felt sex-starved from time to time. Whether it was the act of sex itself, or the closeness and involvement of another human being (which is why my vibrator just doesn't cut it) I don't know for sure. I remember as a 16-year old virgin being advised by some older girls to stay a virgin as long as possible, since once you begin having it, it's so much more difficult to go back to not having it. I think that is very true. I sometimes wonder if forced abstention from sex (an admittedly natural instinct) creates unnatural, unhealthy behaviors- Catholic priests abusing young boys is a possible example of this. If these priests had been allowed to wed and have children, would they have stooped to such a criminal outlet for their sexual urges? Why is it that many religious fanatics often have secret sexual relationships? I'm not claiming that this view is correct, or that I am an expert- these are simply some of the questions that run through my head from time to time. So if we go back to the exmaple of sex outside of loving commited relationship is that for lack of a better term, wrong? In my opinion, no. if we are looking as sex as not part of a commited and loving relationship, so if thats ok, then why isn't prostitution legal? Yes, why isn't it? I think it isn't legal because of the continuance of Christian morality being used to define "right" and "wrong" in this country. Personally I think it should be legal- more tax dollars, more control over protection, more safety for sex workers. The person is obviously seeking sefl gratification and we have two adults who mutually agree to having sex. So be it if its based on a dollar figure, but I don't really see the destinction then. I agree- and as long as it's consensual, I believe it should be legal. Other thoughts?
ImaManDammit Posted June 28, 2005 Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by katiebour Interesting question you pose here- but let's look at it from a different angle. You say "sex without a true, loving relationship can be addictive," but honestly, isn't sex in, a true, loving relationship addictive as well? Not necessarily, as you mention that food is a necessity and I would think love is too. Sex is a byproduct of that love. Perhaps even more so, since you have a feeling of emotional closeness as well as physical gratification? Perhaps that's why so many of us have ONS or "rebound" relationships after a breakup that include sex- we've become addicted to a loving, sexual relationship, and since building the emotional component of a relationship takes time, we seek to feed our addiction as best we can, as quickly as we can by having sex? You could be right. This can also be argued as a chicken and the egg scenario. Are you missing sex, or are you missing the closness and love of that relationship and using sex as a substute in a effort to fill that need. And if that is the case isn't doing more harm than good? Yes, I have certainly felt sex-starved from time to time. Whether it was the act of sex itself, or the closeness and involvement of another human being (which is why my vibrator just doesn't cut it) I don't know for sure. I remember as a 16-year old virgin being advised by some older girls to stay a virgin as long as possible, since once you begin having it, it's so much more difficult to go back to not having it. I think that is very true. Like anything that's addicative it hard's to quit once addicted. I sometimes wonder if forced abstention from sex (an admittedly natural instinct) creates unnatural, unhealthy behaviors- Catholic priests abusing young boys is a possible example of this. If these priests had been allowed to wed and have children, would they have stooped to such a criminal outlet for their sexual urges? Why is it that many religious fanatics often have secret sexual relationships? I'm not claiming that this view is correct, or that I am an expert- these are simply some of the questions that run through my head from time to time. . Well I think it goes beyond religion or specifically christianity. I think we as humans like to think we are better than any other life forms on this planet. Cognito Ergo Sum. I mean animals have sex without need of relationships or monogamy. They are there to satisfy the urge. In essence are we not an animal? Religion introduced the statement God created us bove all living things, but fulfill what need? So I'll pose the statement that morality came about for our need to be superior, whether that be through religion or other means. So in by doing this, did they do too far in deny us from our true animalistic nature and had they not we would in fact look at sex differently. What would the world look like if they did? Is this something that would be acceptable? Does morality have a place and they just drew the line to deep for some? Yes, why isn't it? I think it isn't legal because of the continuance of Christian morality being used to define "right" and "wrong" in this country. Personally I think it should be legal- more tax dollars, more control over protection, more safety for sex workers. Well atleast your consistent, and I respect that. Too bad you weren't there the other night when we were dicussing this. Would have been and interesting conversation.
honeybunch2k5 Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Okay, I will never understand why guys complain about girls giving up sex on the first night. I think that if they really had a problem with it they would say no. I know a few might, but the majority of guys just can't wait to pull out their package. If they are sleeping with women on the first night, then the same should be asked about them. Are they trustworthy, after all, they slept with a woman on the first date? I slept with my current boyfriend within 2 weeks of knowing him. The biggest reason I did it was because I was horny. I seduced him; it was his idea to just roll over and go to sleep. Yes, women can be horny and enjoy sex. This does not make her a slut. I think the problem is the perceived difference in sex drive between men and women. Most societies believe women are more sexual i.e. Muslims and Christians used to. Somehow things changed. A woman sleeps around she's a slut, guy does the same and he's a pimp. In this society women are supposed to be the moral, rational ones while guys sow their wild oats.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Originally posted by honeybunch2k5 I think the problem is the perceived difference in sex drive between men and women. Most societies believe women are more sexual i.e. Muslims and Christians used to. Word. How the change in perception happened is beyond me...
ImaManDammit Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Originally posted by honeybunch2k5 Okay, I will never understand why guys complain about girls giving up sex on the first night. I think that if they really had a problem with it they would say no. I know a few might, but the majority of guys just can't wait to pull out their package. If they are sleeping with women on the first night, then the same should be asked about them. Are they trustworthy, after all, they slept with a woman on the first date? I don't we ever indicated that we agreed to sex when it was offered. But I do agree with you as my opnion seems to me in the minorty. I slept with my current boyfriend within 2 weeks of knowing him. The biggest reason I did it was because I was horny. I seduced him; it was his idea to just roll over and go to sleep. Yes, women can be horny and enjoy sex. This does not make her a slut. I agree. That's her personal choice and if she still respect herself afterwards, well, that's all that matters really isn't it? I think the problem is the perceived difference in sex drive between men and women. Most societies believe women are more sexual i.e. Muslims and Christians used to. Somehow things changed. A woman sleeps around she's a slut, guy does the same and he's a pimp. In this society women are supposed to be the moral, rational ones while guys sow their wild oats. Morality is subjective, usually enforced by a person's or group's personal beliefs. Some groups believe it is moral to have multiple wives, others do not. So who is wrong really?
ImaManDammit Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Originally posted by ReluctantRomeo Word. How the change in perception happened is beyond me... Environments and other external influences. Whether it be television, or family.
Tony427 Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Been reading through and decided to post since this is a subject I have a fairly strong belief about. I am one who believes in waiting until marriage and for no religious reason either, it is a decision I made based upon my own emotions. So with religious morality aside... consider The reason is that for ME it seems more than just a way of gratification it is the greatest showing of affection for another person. (this is something I have posted in a previous thread so forgive me if ou read my ramblings before) I personally could not show that level of affection for just anyone. For example I don't just go around hugging and kissing people I barely know why would I have sex with them just because it feels good. Granted I understand that there may be a strong attraction and you may feel very comfortable with the person but there is also a thing called willpower and there is a reason for it. But I guess since I have never had sex I can't fully understand the need for it but I do know that I sometimes feel as if I NEED it but I also feel that if I were to engage in sex with someone as early as a first date that I would be showing them affection that I truly didn't feel and would feel guilty and as if I was lying to them about how I felt. Now with that being said I also have nothing against people who don't share the feelings I do because everyones emotional tolerances are different and may not see sex as such an emotional thing but I will never be that person and I could never see myself dating that kind of person.
Recommended Posts