Sex

[J-man]

I'm going to have to assert this: you haven't had sex before.

Your insight is so amazing... And no, i don't want to have sex. haven't had it, not yet. That's an appeal of emotions if i'm not mistaken.

Between this and the bible verse in your signature I'm starting to see a pattern here, and besides why is having one partner for a lifetime seen as some kind of higher goal - if anything it's the goal of a genetic lemming.

Now let me impress you with my insight- You didn't even read that article. It's SCIENCE. ya know, hormones and brain and chemicals and everything. It was a research. If you think that's biased because its from christianity.... whatever... i'm not gonna carry this ridiculousness. I've stated my point. I could debate you if i wanted, but that's not what this thread is about.

 

[FlareBlitz]

If i had a dollar for every "sex" thread on smogon i'd be a rich man....

I just don't understand whatever happened to the specialness of sex between married couples... If you want to feel good, why not get a message or sit in a hot tub or get your room clean.....

No, i don't believe in "safe sex" nor do i approve of it (though that doesn't mean i can't live with it...)

Also, whats the legitimacy behind this? http://www.aprillorier.com/2010/03/research-shows-premarital-sex-damaging.html

The first two sentences of your post are fine. Then it starts going downhill.

You compare hot tubs, massages, and cleaning your room to sex, and tell people to do those instead. The problem with this is not that you clearly haven't had sex yet (which is fine), the problem is that you feel the need to imply that these activities are viable replacements for sex without even being able to rationally compare the two.
And if you were wondering, none of those even come close. Honestly you could have said "just masturbate" and at least that would have been acceptable (although still not close...)

After that you say that you don't "believe" in safe sex. It's not santa claus, it's a way of having sex that trivializes the possible negative consequences of sex, there is no room for belief. Safe sex between two people who are not married is functionally identical to safe sex between people who are.

Finally, I can't comment on the book you linked because I have no desire to research the (probably untrue) claims it's making, but note that every single sex psychologist and therapist will encourage sexual activity in a relationship due to the deep feelings of intimacy and understanding of each others' sexual compatibility it will encourage. I can't imagine how anyone could find a negative correlation between pre-marital sex and satisfaction with relationship unless they do a shitty study and fail to account for confounding variables and self-reporting bias...oh wait I guess I just answered my own question...

(inb4"psychologists are brainwashed by liberals")

 

[J-man]

You compare hot tubs, massages, and cleaning your room to sex, and tell people to do those instead.

Why??? Why do you have to respond? Ugh... Seriously, i'm not saying they are comparable to sex, but apparently sex has become some action just to "feel good". What i'm trying to say, there are other things that you can do to "feel good" that doesn't have to be sex.

The problem with this is not that you clearly haven't had sex yet (which is fine), the problem is that you feel the need to imply that these activities are viable replacements for sex without even being able to rationally compare the two.

again, i'm not comparing apples to oranges, i'm just saying do something else.

And if you were wondering, none of those even come close. Honestly you could have said "just masturbate" and at least that would have been acceptable (although still not close...)

About three times you've parroted yourself. State your argument, don't put it in 2 other forms.

After that you say that you don't "believe" in safe sex. It's not santa claus, it's a way of having sex that trivializes the possible negative consequences of sex, there is no room for belief. Safe sex between two people who are not married is functionally identical to safe sex between people who are.

Condoms don't guarantee safe sex, though it reduces risk.

Finally, I can't comment on the book you linked because I have no desire to research the (probably untrue) claims it's making, but note that every single sex psychologist and therapist will encourage sexual activity in a relationship due to the deep feelings of intimacy and understanding of each others' sexual compatibility it will encourage.

First off, you can't judge if you know nothing about the claims. next see the bold word.

I can't imagine how anyone could find a negative correlation between pre-marital sex and satisfaction with relationship unless they do a shitty study and fail to account for confounding variables and self-reporting bias...oh wait I guess I just answered my own question...

(inb4"psychologists are brainwashed by liberals")

http://www.choicesaz.org/sexual_health/reasons_to_wait/

Why don't you actually do the research and THEN answer your own question. Please avoid appeal of emotions. Good day.

 

[Trax]

Your insight is so amazing... And no, i don't want to have sex. haven't had it, not yet. That's an appeal of emotions if i'm not mistaken.

So what you're saying is, you're entitled to compare other activities to something you've never done?

That's a bit like someone saying Islam is evil without reading the Qur'an or any of its teachings, by which I mean it's beyond stupid.

Now let me impress you with my insight- You didn't even read that article. It's SCIENCE. ya know, hormones and brain and chemicals and everything. It was a research. If you think that's biased because its from christianity.... whatever... i'm not gonna carry this ridiculousness. I've stated my point. I could debate you if i wanted, but that's not what this thread is about.

I read that article, it's not exactly offering any kind of legitimate scientific evidence (though that may be in the book, evidence literally translates to "that which is seen" and I clearly haven't read the book).

But again I ask you why is having a single sex partner for your lifetime a goal?



Edit: The only thing that link you posted in response to FlareBlitz proves is that Teenagers make stupid decisions.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Your insight is so amazing... And no, i don't want to have sex. haven't had it, not yet. That's an appeal of emotions if i'm not mistaken.







Now let me impress you with my insight- You didn't even read that article. It's SCIENCE. ya know, hormones and brain and chemicals and everything. It was a research. If you think that's biased because its from christianity.... whatever... i'm not gonna carry this ridiculousness. I've stated my point. I could debate you if i wanted, but that's not what this thread is about.

Truth is, our almighty Zeus allows sexual relationships regardless of marriage; look at his many, many, many adventures. Zeus will not punish if you have sex outside of marriage or outside any relation as long as it is of mutual consent. Remember it well.

 

[lati0s]

Also, whats the legitimacy behind this? http://www.aprillorier.com/2010/03/research-shows-premarital-sex-damaging.html

This is somewhat interesting but I do not think that it is the most reliable source. The claims of the books seem to be focusing heavily biology but the author does not have any degree in biology or even in any other natural science. The author is also obviously a very strong christian. I do not mean to imply that Christians are necessarily biased but the way that she constantly injects her religious perspective into topics on her blog suggests that it is less likely that she would be able to remain objective. The truth of the claims she makes is also debatable, for example she claims that the higher divorce rate among couples who are not virgins when they marry is caused by this fact whereas this article supports the idea that it is because other correlated factors like the fact that most people who are virgins when married had a strict religious upbringing which would frown upon divorce thus causing a couple to stay together in a less than ideal situation because they do not want to be (or be seen as) divorcees.

 

[ivar]

don't find one night hook ups that satisfying. usually i'm drunk and have reduced sensitivity/can't ejaculate.

just thought smogon should know

 

[ginganinja]

Why??? Why do you have to respond? Ugh... Seriously, i'm not saying they are comparable to sex, but apparently sex has become some action just to "feel good". What i'm trying to say, there are other things that you can do to "feel good" that doesn't have to be sex.

I was kinda waiting for a post similar to this to pop up. Sure people have different opinions about sex but personally having sex "just to feel good" is something I like to avoid. Sure you have 1 night stands and stuff but a few people have already said here that they don't really like one night stands.

To me sex is like an extra step in a relationship. I don't really want to get all soppy here but I feel sex does involve an emotional connection with your partner. Sex can be more than just a way to "feel good".

 

[FlareBlitz]

Seriously, i'm not saying they are comparable to sex, but apparently sex has become some action just to "feel good". What i'm trying to say, there are other things that you can do to "feel good" that doesn't have to be sex.

Childish viewpoint. People are going to do what makes them feel good. Would you be okay with living in a tiny apartment, wearing secondhand clothes, without cable or internet and then donating the rest of your income to starving children in Africa? No? Then stop moralizing. People are going to fuck because it feels amazing, and they're not going to be willing to substitute other "feel good" actions in place of that just because you decree that they should due to your own perception of morality.

Condoms don't guarantee safe sex, though it reduces risk.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "trivializes" the risk. Condoms, in combination with hormonal birth control, have a 99.9995% chance of preventing unwanted pregnancy. You would need to have sex, what, more than 1 million times for it to be statistically relevant?
STD risk is there (although sharply reduced), but of course you're more likely to suffer psychological issues from demonizing pre-marital sex: "Delaying sexual activity may create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being"

First off, you can't judge if you know nothing about the claims.

Hey, does that mean you're going to stop talking about sex now?

I know far more about sexual psychology than you do, don't question my ethos. Just because I didn't feel like reading some Christian pop psychology book you pulled out from the ass of the internet doesn't mean I am ignorant about the subject, or that you're arguing from an intellectual high ground.

http://www.choicesaz.org/sexual_health/reasons_to_wait/ Please avoid appeal of emotions. Good day.

Did you try to be ironic here or was it merely a happy coincidence?

 

[Boondocker]

Sex can be more than just a way to "feel good".

And when i find a woman im emotionaly connected to it will be. But for now thats just what it is.

 

[prospector tony]

i have had a lot of fun having sex. it's like a special handshake just for the best of friends.

 

[Synre]

OK I was originally going to whip out the mod powers here but let me try this another way.

J-man, your posts are ridiculous at best because of a combination of a lack of experience and what is frankly a childish naivety. None of your posts have content beyond "parroting" what I'd imagine you were told by your parents and/or your church(and frankly, yes, you were comparing apples to oranges) about sex. You have the right to your opinion but cut out the logical high ground shit because you're not on it. Incidentally if you could try and provide any sort of actual reasoning to give your posts some value it'd be great.

Also, the source in your most recent post. I bothered to go to the about me and wow, what a shocker, it is a religious website(and an obnoxiously blunt one at that)! I'm a little concerned for your sanity if you think that anyone who opposes you on this is going to see that as even remotely reasonable source. Yes, we're aware that the religious right often dislikes premarital sex. That's all that link(and your post) says. Many people have commented on that fact earlier in the thread.


EDIT: And on the first source I'm very intrigued by the author's credentials:

An award-winning Christian poet, inspirational author, blogger and abuse survivor, April Lorier inspires individuals to be all that God designed them to be.

Is that what it takes to do "research" these days? And while it's not a much better source than the the description of the book I'm mocking, Wikipedia sure doesn't seem to echo many of the concerns in the article in spite of the fact the article links to it. Calling that stuff psuedoscience almost insults other similarly unscientific research. Looking at the description and some reviews on google, I feel pretty comfortable saying that its doing little more than trying to invent science to correlate something intelligible to back up a popular fundy stance - it's a pretty obvious attempt to throw science at trying to convince people that somehow they'll have better marriages by being virgins when they're wed, and based on her background and the blog mentioned, it reeks of confirmation bias. And I do intentionally say convince rather than something like prove there, with the blatant loaded statement at the end trying to persuade readers: Surely you want your own children's brains to be able to accept that deep emotional level that's vital to a successful marriage?

What a joke. Almost as big of a joke as the fact I get a fucking "God Bless You" pop up on it when I try to right click. How fuck 1990s is that? I bet Serebii would love that web site.

 

[Thund91]

I was kinda waiting for a post similar to this to pop up. Sure people have different opinions about sex but personally having sex "just to feel good" is something I like to avoid. Sure you have 1 night stands and stuff but a few people have already said here that they don't really like one night stands.

Subjects like this are always back and forth. It's the "I have safe but casual sex" side versus the "you can't have sex before marriage" side. And I always find it odd why anyone should care besides the 2 (or more! ;D) people involved. If someone can give a nice reason I'm all ears.

What a joke. Almost as big of a joke as the fact I get a fucking "God Bless You" pop up on it when I try to right click. How fuck 1990s is that? I bet Serebii would love that web site.

I lol'd

 

[Mike B]

Overcomplicates early relationships, needs to be taken carefully.


It's only as bad outside of marriage as a person makes it out to be.


There is no reason why a person should not have unmarried sex unless they want to.


I wouldn't care because I'm a realist. The worst that can happen is getting an STD from screwing like a rabbit, and I don't do that, so it's fair game to me.

 

[AJers]

I really REALLY enjoy pre-marital sex, :)

I used to be super casual about sex, but I'm taking a break from relationships/sex right now. I don't imagine I will be as casual as I was a year ago, but we'll see. As long as sex is between two consenting adults I really don't have any problems with it.

I'm not religious, but even my religious friends have pre-marital sex so I don't think religion has a lot of hold over their congregation (or, at least, it's not as frowned upon as much nowadays). It's cool if you make that promise/vow to yourself, but I don't think it's okay for you to try to rain all over someone else's parade.

 

[Magic Toaster]

Subjects like this are always back and forth. It's the "I have safe but casual sex" side versus the "you can't have sex before marriage" side. And I always find it odd why anyone should care besides the 2 (or more! ;D) people involved. If someone can give a nice reason I'm all ears.

If people be more careful about who they have sex with will it stop STDs in general?

 

[DM]

STIs will never be gone forever, that's just a reality everyone must face. It's impossible to properly educate every person with an STI, especially people in the poverty areas.

 

[FlareBlitz]

ill deal with other stuff later, but just a question- do you subscribe to Freud's theories on sexual developement?
i don't need to have sex to know what it is.

No, I don't subscribe to Freud's theories on sexual development, because they are stupid and somewhat outdated. There are much more accurate theories on human sexuality, which I do not expect you to know because it is apparent to me that your education system has failed you as far as an understanding of sex goes.

I subscribe to the more "nature" oriented theories on sexual development, which suggests that humans are biologically inclined towards certain sexual behaviors and that attempting to suppress these tendencies without a proper understanding of them either doesn't work or is simply counter-productive. There's a reason the highest teen pregnancy rates are associated with highly religious, abstinence-only school systems. People are going to fuck regardless, so our responsibility as a society is to ensure that they're doing so with a proper understanding of their responsibilities and the steps that they can take to ensure that they're as safe as possible while doing so. This is why the fact that you don't "believe" in safe sex is so incredibly perverse...you're merely seeking to accentuate all those risks associated with sex, instead of mitigating them.

You might not need to have sex to know what it is, but you do need an understanding of human sexuality before commenting on it. Otherwise your arguments will never be anything other than frustratingly naive.

 

[Synre]

Deleted context to the above post, but figured I'd leave it to keep the chain going since that part of the post was fine(outside of the fact that no one has taken Freud seriously for decades).

I'm done giving free passes in this topic. I'm pretty sure this is obvious since it goes for every topic on the forum, but please stop posting inane bullshit, especially if you're going to do it in a format that is tedious to read. Differences of opinions are fine, posts that aren't backed up by any sort of reasonable content are not. And I'd touch up on the definition of those logical fallacies, J-man, I think you're about to fail a test.

 

[Arcturus]

I like sex. I enjoy random hook-ups. I always practice safe sex and get tested twice a year. I don't care about other people's beliefs on the subject.

I think that's about as far as anyone with experience in having sex should have to go to explain themselves on the matter.

 

[Cartoons!]

Every book of the New Testament was written to people who were already believers. As such, writings about conduct, such as abstaining from fornication, I don't think, should be applied to unbelievers. Our primary concern as Christians ought to be the preaching of Jesus Christ with the goal of saving souls. Trying to compel an outward obeisance to godliness will not only fail, but is futile as trying to follow God's law doesn't lead to salvation anyway. As Flareblitz noted, a religious institution that tries to impress such rules on an unchanged heart (and no religious institution can change the heart), will often lead to disillusionment or even perversion (I don't need to give examples, they're plentiful).

I used to be pretty given to lasciviousness. Since I've stopped following up on, or looking for flirtatious encounters, and giving up porn, it's not really a big deal anymore and I'm perfectly content to wait until marriage. I don't think 'fighting' one's natural urge to have sex was ever on God's agenda anyway as people used to get married pretty young until only recently.

 

[Donny Mae.]

Last time I had sex. I was drunk. I only realised after the photos went up on Facebook O.o

 

[orangekows]

Sex can be a lot of fun in the right circumstances, and with the right alcohol. There's nothing wrong with it and anyone who gets offended when people talk about it is just uptight. I was disappointed the first time I had sex though, and I've never found it as great as I expected it to be.

 

[Tancho]

I think sex is natural and couples should try to have sex every day since it strengthen bonds in a relationship and makes females feel better about themselfs and boost their self-esteem.

 

[EmperorJoe]

I think that sex before marriage is okay, but only if its with someone you care about and not just some person on the street cornor