Recreational Sex

[Robert Frazer]

Seems like the logical place to pick up. This is split from the "James Cameron funny" thread, where a sub debate about sex .. sprang up. Enjoy. -- fisher


There's a serious faction of whackos out there who really try to pimp the idea that sex is bad, period.

Recreational sex is bad, full stop. It spreads diseases; adultery shatters families with distressing regularity; the undisciplined find themselves not so much thrown into the deep end as hurled in and kept thrashing down below when they get pregnant; It's a sink for horrendous quantities of time and cash as you wine and dine a lady of your desire, unaware if you've veered into the minefield of a gold-digger whose sole objective is to bleed you white.

All this for "thirty seconds of intense yet confused pleasure", plus understanding the intimate secrets The Joy of Laundry? Is it - really, honestly, and truthfully, after considered reflection - worth the bother?

[Paladin]

RF: You're not catching me. There are a great many religious types, more than you would think, possibly, who believe sex is bad. Not just recreational sex, but all sex. They feel that humanity would be better off if everyone just quit.

You can see the effect this group has had on religious dogma, like the idea that even a husband and wife should only have sex for the purpose of having a child, and even then they should try not to enjoy it. And they should probably feel guilty about it afterwards.

It's not necessarily a religious problem, as the group seems to arise spontaneously, it's simply that Christianity and it's concepts of chastity created a perfect vessel for this group to spread it's toxic message. Later on they would form the ultra hard-core radical nutjob feminists, the ones who preached all sex being evil. And once the feminist movement as a whole wised up and disavowed them, they moved on to various other things (I don't really want to start the discussion that would ensue if I pointed out where, so I won't).

But the sad effects they have had on religious dogma throughout history is highly regrettable, and unfortunately still lingering.

[Noble]

Recreational sex is bad, full stop. It spreads diseases; adultery shatters families with distressing regularity; the undisciplined find themselves not so much thrown into the deep end as hurled in and kept thrashing down below when they get pregnant; It's a sink for horrendous quantities of time and cash as you wine and dine a lady of your desire, unaware if you've veered into the minefield of a gold-digger whose sole objective is to bleed you white.

All this for "thirty seconds of intense yet confused pleasure", plus understanding the intimate secrets The Joy of Laundry? Is it - really, honestly, and truthfully, after considered reflection - worth the bother?


Unless of course you use a rubber, then you're fine. Wow, off topic in five pages, what a record!

[BmB]

They feel that humanity would be better off if everyone just quit.
Maybe they're right?

Hardly a record n0bl3, I'd say sleeping death went offtopic in 3.

[The5thElephant]

Recreational sex is bad, full stop. It spreads diseases; adultery shatters families with distressing regularity; the undisciplined find themselves not so much thrown into the deep end as hurled in and kept thrashing down below when they get pregnant; It's a sink for horrendous quantities of time and cash as you wine and dine a lady of your desire, unaware if you've veered into the minefield of a gold-digger whose sole objective is to bleed you white.

All this for "thirty seconds of intense yet confused pleasure", plus understanding the intimate secrets The Joy of Laundry? Is it - really, honestly, and truthfully, after considered reflection - worth the bother?

Wow, you must have really bad sex.

It's called sexual education, enough of which will prevent the majority of what you mention, if not all. Even further, one does not need to sink large amounts of money into a woman just to sink something else into her. If a woman does require such effort, she is not worth your time or money. I prefer passion, conversation and humor over cash.

I find it incredibly funny that in all likelihood if Jesus was alive today he would be horrified at what Christianity had become. Literally the opposite of what he preached in many ways and otherwise just twisted and perverted forms of what he preached.

Even funnier is the fact that if he was alive today and started criticizing people, he would be ridiculed and shunned.

[Robert Frazer]

RF: You're not catching me. There are a great many religious types, more than you would think, possibly, who believe sex is bad. Not just recreational sex, but all sex. They feel that humanity would be better off if everyone just quit.

I wouldn't go that far, as it's not Christian, or even religious - it's just silly. After all, God instructed Noah to go forth, increase and multiply and Christ expalined how a man leaves his father and mother to join his wife so the two become one flesh. I don't maintain any pretensions of having a full grasp of God's ineffable will, but it's a reasonable presumption that it doesn't involve the extinction of his chosen people! :trix:

(incidentally, my first post wasn't having any necessary religious element added to it, just a purely philosophical point).

[Starfisher]

Even further, one does not need to sink large amounts of money into a woman just to sink something else into her. HAAHahahahahaha

Quote of the year. Quote of the decade. Well done sir. Well done!

My girlfriend's parents are a lot like what Paladin is talking about. Here's something they said to their kids in a recent argument about sex:

"Is it really worth it for a few seconds of guilty pleasure?"

Think about that. Just think about what that says.

Now, your girlfriend's parent's sex life is something you should simply not think about. There is nothing good that can possibly come of knowing anything at all about it. I'd give anything to have not heard that, but it is almost exactly the same thing that RF just said.

It illustrates the disconnect between reality and religious sex attitudes nicely. If sex only lasts for a few seconds, then you need medical attention, not Jesus. If you think that women are gold diggers looking to bleed you white, you need to actually meet some women, not claim that dating is a waste of time. If you think it's not worth the bother you, as the saying goes, need to get laid.

Hmm. This is massively off topic. But I needed to get that out.

[The5thElephant]

Yay, I made 'fisher happy!

I'm curious as to what kind of answer RF or 'fisher's girlfriend's parents would give to our responses here.

I have a feeling it will be the same old sound-byte (teh sex kills babies!.....errr makes babies!). Followed by the announcement that despite all the teenage pregnancies which somewhat sort of back up their point they still promote abstinence.

Of course all the problems they speak of (which are a minority) would go away with proper sex-education. Shit, that kills babies as well.

[BmB]

If you think it's not worth the bother you, as the saying goes, need to get laid.
I don't think it's worth the bother. And I don't think getting laid would change that.
It's the ultimate purpose of it, to get kids. And nomatter how much more there is to it, I don't think any road is worth walking, whatever it is, if you don't like the goal. So I won't even step into it.

Some things it appears, will drag any topic into it's web whenever mentioned. This seems to be another.

[The5thElephant]

BmB23 - There is no such thing as an ultimate purpose for something that came out of a bunch of random mutations. There are numerous biological effects to having sex, one of them can be conception, others are pleasurable stimulus, exercise of the muscles, etc. You may choose one or many of those as to why you are performing the act, but it is foolish to deny yourself something just becasuse you do not want one of the possible outcomes which can be easily avoided.

Driving cars often causes deaths (along with plenty of other things, both good and bad), but you do not avoid driving do you? Actually I do avoid driving because of its danger, but that is besides the point, I still get into cars despite my fear. In the same way I still have sex despite my minor fear (due to my sex education) of getting someone pregnant or getting an STD.

[Robert Frazer]

Then look at it this way: no-one would insinuate that you're somehow less of a person if you didn't drive cars; - indeed, in this day and age of global warming, endemic obesity and depleted oil reserves, those who use public transport, ride bicycles and so on are frequently praised as paragons of civic virtue. Similarly, I don't see why my election to practice abstinence suddenly renders me subhuman.

[Noble]

No one said you were subhuman, we just said that there is nothing wrong with responsible recreational sex. Any condescending tones more than likely stem from your propegation of ignorant ideas concering sexual practice.

Saying that recreational sex is factually wrong, tends to step on people's toes.

[Robert Frazer]

Saying that recreational sex is factually wrong, tends to step on people's toes.

And I remain to be convinced that it isn't factually wrong.

If it's so self-evident that sexual intercourse is this indispensible aspect of one's being that declining to indulge in it is a sure sign of abnormality, then it should be easy enough to prove. So, explain to me - what is so great about it? Does my life depend on it? Is the transient sensation derived from those sweaty gyrations really that fulfilling?

Now, religious belief only plays a limited part in my decision to abstain - God knows that I'm no way near a saint, but one rule that I can keep is the one against fornication and I intend to do so. If you can't get your head around the spiritual aspect, think of it as a form of self-discipline. However, I know that I wouldn't be condemned to the Abyss for a lapse, and if I admitted to fornication in confession I doubt that my priest would do so much as bat an eyelid - good grief, when I was starting university my own mother was encouraging me to go and spread my wild oats.

I currently live in student Halls of Residence, so as you can imagine the atmosphere is fairly indiscreet - there was even one occasion at 10 o'clock on Saturday morning when I was shaving in the corridor bathroom to the accompaniment of a great deal of banging and giggling coming from behind the door of the shower cubicle across the room. It's not as if I'm posting from some isolated Cheviot hermitage where "erection" has been carefully scored out of the library's dictionaries. And yet, people are still grumpy, constantly complaining about their homework, the weather, the bad food at the refectory, the lack of money, their exam results, and the constant bickering in the bar over who's shacked up with who... this "elevating" practice doesn't seem to be giving them all that sunny a disposition, really. I, by contrast, feel quite content with myself.

"You an' me baby ain't nuffin' but mammals"... and they don't practice recreational sex either. :p (EDIT: alright, fair cop, I knew that one wasn't going to hold any water ;) )

[Starfisher]

And refraining from sex appears to be gaining you nothing but a grossly inaccurate view of it.

We're responding to what sounds like a nerdly rationalization for virginhood couched in nearly impenetrable vocabulary, not advocating sex as a cure all for life's ills. A reminder:


Recreational sex is bad, full stop. It spreads diseases; adultery shatters families with distressing regularity; the undisciplined find themselves not so much thrown into the deep end as hurled in and kept thrashing down below when they get pregnant; It's a sink for horrendous quantities of time and cash as you wine and dine a lady of your desire, unaware if you've veered into the minefield of a gold-digger whose sole objective is to bleed you white.
You seem to view "recreational sex" (pre-marital, non-binding, whatever) as some sort of life destroying drug, when, like any other basic, natural human behavior, it's perfectly fine if engaged in responsibly. In this statement you connect sex with disease, inevitable pregnancy, manipulation and bankruptcy. Come on.

I agree that recreational sex in marriage is bad for marriages and families, but I think everyone already understands that. Adultery is not recreational sex, it's a breach of contract and a breach of trust, both of which do not apply to the standard two single adults hooking up for a while.

edit:
Mammals regularly engage in recreational sex. No animal on this planet reproduces for the sole purpose of making babies. If they did, we would not have evolved such a strong pleasure response, because we would be more than capably of rationally doing the deed when we decided to reproduce. But of course that's not the way evolution works. Animals the world over have sex because it brings them pleasure. There's the famous experiment where a mouse is presented with two buttons: one gives him food, and the other simulates an orgasm with a jolt of electricity to his pleasure center. The mouse inevitably dies of starvation, because he just keeps hitting the pleasure button.

Don't confuse proximate cause with ultimate cause. The overarching reason for sex is to reproduce, but the reason individual agents actually engage in it is because it feels good. In a world without contraception, that is more than sufficient to fulfill the evolutionary duty to reproduce.

[AceRimmer]

You sir, have no self-control. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that 95% of everyone here has no self-control.

Surely you're not assuming that everyone is going to be responsible. What about those people who aren't? Are they free from the problems outlined by Robert?

You tell us to stop living in our "dellusional" world when you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone practises safe sex? Don't ignore the whole picture when it suits you just because Christians have an equally valid point.

Talk about casting pearls before pigs.

[DatonKallandor]

Catholics (please don't just use "christians" not everyone is as stuck up) are just as much subject to lack of self-control as people who are not religious. Infact, a non-educated Catholic is more prone to non-safe-sex than an educated non-catholic.

[Alpha_Monkey]

Rimmer:

Of course not everyone is responsible, there are plenty of idiots out there. However, if they don't show a bit of sense, they're the only ones who're gonna have to deal with the (potentially unsightly....and itchy) consequences, and they'll only have themselves to blame.

[Mac_Bug]

It's a lot easier to preach abstinence and what not than to do it. It's the same sort of thing as quitting smoking and losing weight. Easy, right?

[Noble]

No one is saying there is anything wrong with you for abstaning. If that's what you want to do, fine whatever.

You talk about adultery as if it is an inherent part of all "recreational" sex, when it isn't. Two single consenting adults are not commiting adultery when they have sex.

You also talk about the spread of disease, which I think is your strongest argument. Unfortunately for your argument, contraceptive measures prevent the transmission of most STD's. Education for young people on how to use the contraceptives only furthers the prevention of the spread of infection. Instead, young adults are told to abstain, and don't get a lesson in contraceptive use. Invariably, some of them do not abstain, and without any knowledge of responsible sex, they get eachother pregnant or give eachother the clap.

If the only women you've met like you or spend time with you after you've taken them out or bought them things, then you need to meet new women. There are plenty out there who are decent human beings, and might even like you for who you are. (hint: women like sex too, they don't all just use it as a carrot to dangle over your head.)

Clearly I don't share your religious scruples, so I won't even go into that.

Irresponsible people are going to perform irresponsible acts, abstinance is not going to change that. Do you think that someone who is willing to have unprotected sex with multiple partners is going to "do the right thing" and abstain? You should be attributing the "bad" part of sex to the irresponsibility of people, not sex itself.

If I have a hammer in my hand (no pun intended) I can choose to use it to build a house, or cave someone's skull in. I'm irresponsible so I decide to cave someone's skull in afterall. That means the hammer, and in fact the act of hammering, is "bad, full stop", right?


So how is recreational sex bad? It makes me feel pretty good, thats for damn sure.


Edit: Is there any way some mod magic could happen and this get split into another thread?

[Starfisher]

I'll try to split the subthread off after this post.


You sir, have no self-control. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that 95% of everyone here has no self-control.

Surely you're not assuming that everyone is going to be responsible. What about those people who aren't? Are they free from the problems outlined by Robert?

You tell us to stop living in our "dellusional" world when you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone practises safe sex? Don't ignore the whole picture when it suits you just because Christians have an equally valid point.

Talk about casting pearls before pigs.No self control? Pearls before pigs? What? Please elaborate. I don't understand these points or their relevance.

I am not assuming everyone is going to be responsible. Do not engage in the fallacy of the false choice. I am stating that the problems outlined by Robert Frazer are not inevitable outcomes, as he portrayed, not that everyone who has sex is free from them. You are attempting to twist this into a binary situation, where you either abstain or get STDs, someone pregnant, go bankrupt and get swindled. That's absurd, disengenuous and it's insulting when people attempt to foist a false position on their opponent. Engage my argument - that sex can be engaged in responsibly - rationally, or save us the drivel and the attempts at victimhood.

You might as well say that because some people drive drunk, we should outlaw alcohol. Or that because some people drive recklessly, we should outlaw cars. Or that beacuse some people engage in behavior X destructively, all people must be prohibited from engaging in behavior X, regardless of whether they were responsible about it or not.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

No one is saying there is anything wrong with you for abstaning. If that's what you want to do, fine whatever.Actually thats exactly the tone I'm getting from this.

I voluntarily abstain from casual sex because I believe it creates an emotional bond with someone, and that I don't want to create said bond with someone I don't really care about and probably won't see again. Which, before you ask, is exactly the sort of person most of my friends end up shagging.

I don't, incidentally, refrain from sleeping with people, just from actual sex. And I'm not religious either before you ask. Make of that what you will.


You might as well say that because some people drive drunk, we should outlaw alcohol. Or that because some people drive recklessly, we should outlaw cars.FYI I don't drink, and if I can possibly avoid it, don't drive either. For exactly those reasons.

[DatonKallandor]

You do that for personal reasons, and you don't try to force your few onto others by making up ridiculous reasons that are absolutely no true. So your view on abstinence is not an issue.

[Noble]

Like I said, that is a personal decision you've made for your self. That is fine. I'm actually, a lot more conservative with this kind of thing than many of my friends.

But going so far as to say there is something intrinsically wrong with sex outside of wedlock (if that is the definition of recreational sex we are going by) is where I find fault.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Daton: I appreciate that sentiment. Thanks. Unfortunately there are a lot of moronic people out there who think you're an inferior person if you haven't had sex, so it's not exactly a universal sentiment.

n0bl3: I have no problem with sex outside of wedlock, so if that's the definition of recreational sex you're using then nope, nothing inherently wrong with it. What I do have a problem with is what I term casual sex, IE sex with someone who's no more than a recent aquaintance. If both people involved are fine with that then I obviously can't complain, but often I find that one partner (if I can even use that word here) believes that it will just be a prelude to a longer term relationship, and that they can often end up really upset when that turns out not to be the case.

[Noble]

I don't think anyone has expressed that sentiment n0z3.

[Starfisher]

n0z3, you can make those choices if you wish. So long as you just state your position and some rational reasoning, I respect it even if I disagree with your particular weighting risk and benefit. But if you make wild and unjustifiable assertions about those behaviors, then I'll jump on you.

[ceejayoz]

Recreational sex is bad, full stop. It spreads diseases; adultery shatters families with distressing regularity; the undisciplined find themselves not so much thrown into the deep end as hurled in and kept thrashing down below when they get pregnant; It's a sink for horrendous quantities of time and cash as you wine and dine a lady of your desire, unaware if you've veered into the minefield of a gold-digger whose sole objective is to bleed you white.

All this for "thirty seconds of intense yet confused pleasure", plus understanding the intimate secrets The Joy of Laundry? Is it - really, honestly, and truthfully, after considered reflection - worth the bother? Wow. Those are some serious negatives you're throwing about there.

Diseases? "Safe sex" includes you and your partner(s) getting STD tests on a regular basis. It's often free, always cheap, and well worthwhile. Add in other precautions like condom usage and it's entirely possible to avoid diseases (and pregnancy).

Adultery and recreational sex can and often are entirely separate. No one forces you to pick married sex partners, and there are other problems in the marriage than just the sex if cheating is occurring.

As a college student, you should know that even those with no money to be target of a gold-digger nor money for expensive wining and dining generally have no problem finding a willing partner. Poor people clearly have no more trouble finding sex partners than rich people. Sex can be fun, for both parties, and your negative views of how women act say more about your personal experiences and/or biases than sex itself.

I managed to have recreational sex without STD, pregnancy, wining-and-dining, being gold-dug. I even wound up happily married. Oh, and I'll have you know that it has always lasted more than 30 seconds, and messes requiring laundry are easily avoided.

[Noble]

I have no problem with sex outside of wedlock, so if that's the definition of recreational sex you're using then nope, nothing inherently wrong with it. What I do have a problem with is what I term casual sex, IE sex with someone who's no more than a recent aquaintance. If both people involved are fine with that then I obviously can't complain, but often I find that one partner (if I can even use that word here) believes that it will just be a prelude to a longer term relationship, and that they can often end up really upset when that turns out not to be the case.

In that case, I would contend that the problem lies with the manipulative bastard who will say or do anything to get laid, not with the act itself.

[BigFish]

We are increadibly lucky in that it is only in the last 30odd year that we can actually consider recreational sex! Before the advent of widespread and well known and reliable contreception you could litterally be gambling with your life if you engaged in recreational sex!

I think the religious tabboos against casual sex were a very usefull social tool at the time (weather it was humans of the divine that suggested it), the "have sex = go to hell" teachings were the only real way to cut down on unwanted pregnancys and STDs before contreception. Unfortunatly several thousand years of dogma cant be dismantled overnight, hence we have the backlash against casual sex we see today from some areas of society.

I personally dont have much of a problem with recreational sex between two responsible, consenting adults out side of wedlock.
Unfortunatly its the 'responsible' part that causes problems. I was born and bred in Essex (those of you in the UK know what that means, lol) so I saw 4 of my classmates get pregnant before 15 years old and one guy get syphillis. This has made me increadibly carefull about what I do and who I do it with.
The problem at the moment is we are living between two eras. The old religious tabboos are being re-evaluated and have not settled down enough to allow sex education to be taught as thoroughly as is needed to make casual sex as safe as can be. This thread is a brilliant example of all the differant opinions that exist at the moment as society adapts to the changes going on within it.


I voluntarily abstain from casual sex because I believe it creates an emotional bond with someone, and that I don't want to create said bond with someone I don't really care about and probably won't see again. Which, before you ask, is exactly the sort of person most of my friends end up shagging.On the other hand, if it is someone you do care about (not actually love thought), it can bring friends far closer together. Not always tho...

[Octopus Rex]

Um, can't recreational sex occur between two adults in a long term relationship and also in wedlock? Or are they only suppposed to have sex when they are trying to conceive? A long term couple/wedded pair will surely have plenty of sex without the desire to produce offspring i.e. recreational sex. The fact that the two are in a long term relationship strikes off almost all of the negatives mentioned so far.

[ceejayoz]

Octopus Rex, I think "recreational sex" here isn't being used to describe "sex without the intent to create a child", but "sex out of wedlock". I suspect even Robert doesn't hate the idea of two married people having sex for fun. :p

[Commander ASOP]

Recreational sex what a silly phrase, as compared to what obligatory sex.

"hey joe why so down"

"Well steve I have to have obligatory sex tonight"

"bummer man"

Now I know there are those out there in relationships that do have sex and have no pleasure in it, and really feel bad for them.

Personally I have never had anything but recreational sex and it has never brought dismay to me. Have two lovely children and a wonderful wife. I do not commit adultery but when I was single I did have sex with casual acquaintances. Some lead to relationships some not. Sex is a basic need for most people not just for the pleasure at the end but the human touch and bond that forms.

There is nothing wrong with abstinence if it is your choice and many people have sex at a young age for the wrong reasons. Peer pressure and a desire to be popular are horrible reasons to have sex. But let me organize my thoughts.

Sexual addiction. Has been alluded to here. It is very damaging can cause people to lose their jobs families and themselves. It is not the act of having sex for pleasure that is the root of sexual addiction. It is a mental disorder and typically requires more and more stimulation to reach the same ends. Much like some drug use. The sexual addict may not even be having intercourse with any one. They may just masterbate and require increasing levels of pornography to reach their goals.

Promiscuity. Why do people sleep around? Well there are thousands of reasons many revolve around ego and self esteem. Most I think are people who just enjoy sex. If you are single and out with someone why not have pleasure with them. It would just be horrible if your first sex was on your wedding night. I mean people like different things. Some women love to give and get head others find it disgusting. Some peole like to be submissive others dominate. It is weird all the different things that really get people off but if you are with someone who does not like what you do or you do not like what they like it can lead to adultery and other problems.

STDs - These really suck but if you are responsible not a huge problem. Can be managed if not eliminated entirely. Of course people are not responsible but remember if you are responsible you have nothing to worry about.


When is sex wrong. Well aside from acts of rape which are a given wrong. I think sex is wrong when done not for pleasure. The best example is young girls. Most women do not enjoy sex until about 20. Some earlier some later unfourtantly some never. Most young girls are not having sex for pleasure but for acceptance and what they think of as love. This is wrong. I see nothing wrong with a person being sexual in nature but 14-15 year old girls are not wearing what they wear to feel sexy but for attention. That and the rise in group sex for young people is scary. It is not sex at this point but more dominance of one grooup over another.

So are there concerns about the effects of sex? Of course but can people have an active fulfilling sex life with multiple casual partners sure.

Besides while masterbation can be fun it is just not the same.

[Noble]

Recreational sex what a silly phrase, as compared to what obligatory sex.

"hey joe why so down"

"Well steve I have to have obligatory sex tonight"

"bummer man"

That reminds me of 1984. The government took all the pleasrue out of sex, and conditioned people to be repulsed by it. Sex was always obligitory, and was even described as not only being pleasureless, but painfull or uncomfortable as well. The main character's wife would have to force him to "perform his civic duty" on a weekly basis. I always thought that was an interesting aspect of the English Socialism Orwell imagined. An aversion to sex would mean that people would have an aversion to forming deep emotional connections with the opposite sex. They didn't want people caring more about eachother than the party.

[ceejayoz]

Most women do not enjoy sex until about 20. What evidence are you basing that on? Hell, babies masturbate for pleasure (http://www.drgreene.com/21_606.html), and it's not like it suddenly stops being pleasurable for 18 years.

While it's certainly true that some kids are peer-pressured into sex (both genders, by the way), teenage girls are entirely capable of enjoying sex as well.

[Fannin]

The moral question here can't really be argued objectively, so I really think we ought to dispense with it.

Bettering oneself is not a religious or moral issue, however, and I fully see how refraining from "recreational sex" can cause that betterment. Abstinence is no excuse for ignorance regarding what constitutes safe(r) sexual practices, but the idea that abstaining such that one becomes less a creature of instinct is certainly a rational one.

Not that I'd claim that someone is less of a person for indulging, mind you... but I think we could all use a bit more distance from instinct than we currently have.

[FifteenHours]

teenage girls are entirely capable of enjoying sex as well.
Firstly, I'm guessing he means women being unable to achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse with another partner.
Secondly though, I've lived a bit of a life of casual sex. I started having sex when I was 13 in a sorta friends with benefits agreement. I was still only having sex with the one girl on occasion, but it was unprotected from time to time due mostly to complete and utter ignorance on the subject. I just liked the way it felt, and made me feel, so I didn't care. I was lucky enough to avoid a bullet, especially after finding out how many guys she's been sleeping with besides me....kinda ended that agreement quickly hehe.
Anywho, my point is that I've been on the casual side of the debate, and in some ways I still side with recreational sex to some degree. I've been part of an extremely loving and lasting relationship the past few years, and admittedly I've had lots of sex with my girlfriend. I must admit then after having had sex casually, that being with a loving passionate partner really makes a HUGE difference.
So when I talk to some of my friends who haven't had sex before, or have just started (And even talking to my little brother about him and his g/f, as I'd hate for something bad to happen to him) I tell them that sex is cool...sex is great...but to be responsible and if you can help it, wait for someone special. Not so much for the "Oh noes! Things are falling off of me!" thing, but more for the emotional fulfillment you get out of sex with a partner.
Now that's not to say ppl who have casual sex are evil...FAR from it. Here's the way I see it...if you wanna just sleep with whomever, wherever that's your deal. If you want to COMPLETELY abstain at all costs, that's cool too. The key is though, you don't step on my toes or anyone elses, and I won't step on yours. If you think abstaining is the right thing for your life, I say more power to you, and I respect your choice...but if you look down on me cause I had sex at a young age, or how I'm having sex with a woman I love and live with, but am not married to...I have an issue with that. I don't see too many people here trying to attack those who abstain, outside of saying that A) Women are NOT evil demons and B) The consequences of casual sex don't occur 100% of the time. No one is saying "Everybody run out and have sex with the next person you meet just cause!" around here....no one is saying "Quit abstaining....all the cool kids are having sex"....However, I must agree that if one's perception of sex is WAY off base with reality (i.e. viewed as evil, or perhaps you are convinced your g/f has a pussytroll *excuse the terminology*) then perhaps its time you found a relationship, had some safe sex, and decided what to do.
If you're just saying "I wanna abstain cause that's my belief" and you are NOT trying to push your belief onto those around you, then I am completely cool with it, and like I said I respect your choice, because you respect mine.

[ceejayoz]

Firstly, I'm guessing he means women being unable to achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse with another partner. And that's why God invented vibrators. Plenty of teenage females are able to orgasm during intercourse, and plenty of adult females are not. Either way, it doesn't support the stated point.

[oneredpanther]

This is ridiculous.
Abstaining from sex is rather like abstaining from food. You may not be eating but the desire to eat is never eliminated. Granted that you will never die from a lack of intercourse (although some college students protest otherwise) the analogy of desire vs. satisfaction remains true.

On an individual basis, and assuming that individual practises safe sex, the benefits of celebacy are reasonably close to zero in all practical terms. The misplaced 'satisfaction' gained from one-more-day of not bowing to the necessarily satanic carnal pleasures is never enough to remove the sexual drive of the individual.

In other words, one is involved in a constant and never-ending battle of wills against the Desire to Fuck (TM), a desire for which there is no penalty for meeting. Of course the reasons to still pretend that sex is not desired are likely: a) misplaced or misinterpreted religous brainwashing or b) an unsophisticated cover for the fact that one is simply too nerdy to get any!

Panth

[Giant Moth]

I don't get you foreigners, why do you make such a damn big deal out of sex? Over here(in Sweden), it's socially accepted if you had sexuall intercourse when you were 13. I mean it as in if you tell someone "I had sex when I was 13", and no one would bother to think about it twice. Also, you can sleep with pretty much anyone if you're over 15. Of course, if a 15 year old has sex with a 25 year old, someone will react to it, but not that many will care if a 17 year old has a 20 year old boyfriend. We also don't have any law that prevents you from vissiting a pornsite at ANY age, although too young would probably be considered inaporpriate.

So I guess our country is a lot sexually free than yours. Though we're still only 9 million and havn't incresed very drastically within the latest 20 years. So obviously our views of sexuality dosn't have anything to do with the production of babies. And sexually diseases in Sweden is very uncommon as well. And I have never heard of a relationship breaking up because of anyone being too damn horny. Cheating on someone, yes, but that has nothing to do with the view of sexuality.

[FifteenHours]

And that's why God invented vibrators. Plenty of teenage females are able to orgasm during intercourse, and plenty of adult females are not. Either way, it doesn't support the stated point.
Oh I definetely agree...I was just trying to flesh out what I think he was trying to say, but you're right when you say it doesn't support the stated point.

b) an unsophisticated cover for the fact that one is simply too nerdy to get any!
Hey now! I am just as nerdy as the next guy and I can get laid...well...then again...my g/f does play D20, and was in band in High school...so I guess if we nerds ban together we can all find female counterparts to help spread nerdiness worldwide!
Back on topic now, I do agree with you panth on the desire never going away. I know some people who are all like "Don't have sex before marriage! Sex is dirty and wrong!" and yet these same girls (I actually can't think of any guys I know who carry this thought) are also performing oral sex on all sorts of guys...one of the girls even told me she went to church once right after a quick one, and there was semen on her black shirt...
Is she less of a person cause she has oral sex? No...but it does bug me that she can judge others for what they do, but so long as nothing enters the nether-regions she feels she can get away with murder. Some other girls I know have verbally assailed a mutual friend of ours for having sex out of marriage, but one of them claims, and I quote "I'm not sure if I've ever had sex, as I was pretty wasted a few times and I remember making out with a bunch of guys that night...but that's all I remember".
Denying yourself the satisfaction is weird, but I can respect it. I just get sick and tired of all the religious weirdos, or other anti-sex types around...I live in West Michigan, where anti-sex conservatives are everywhere. In fact many legislators are attempting to crush a mandate to make the HPV vaccine required for all young girls as they say it's a "license to promiscuity". But that's another subject all together.

[Octopus Rex]

Well:

STDs - not something anyone with any sense has to worry about. Recreational sex is not to blame, UNSAFE sex is. If you always practice safe sex then your chances of catching an STD are extremely small.

Dating costs loads of money - not if you're a charming bastard, I'm afraid. If it costs you tons of money then you need to work on your pick up lines. And if it costs you THAT much then just get a hooker, it'll be cheaper. If you're so dumb that date a Gold-digger then it's your own fault. Easy-answer: don't flash the cash, it'll serve you better in the long run.

Breaks up loads of marriages - well, you need to pick your partners better/keep them well loved and well shagged. Yeah, you won't be able to predict it happening but surely most cheating is out of boredom/unhappiness. If it's not then you need to stay away from partners lacking in will power.

Pregnancy - again, not something you need to worry about if you practice safe sex (apart from that fateful 98% success of condoms or whatever)

Now those answers may seem selfish, but that's really all you need to think about. Labelling recreational sex as "bad" is absolutely arbitrary. There's tons of things that are much much worse and are fully recgonised to be so, yet people still do them EVERY DAY. Eg - killing people, raping people, stealing stuff, drink driving the list goes on. People will always do stuff that hurts other people, they'll do this till humans are extinct - all YOU can do is protect yourself from them as much as you see fit and then stop worrying about it.

[Titler]

The only problem with recreational sex is if it's not made clear this is actually what it is risking someone's heart getting tangled up in it all as if it were something more. But if you both say "Yeah, it's just sex, want some?" then who cares what they do? It's their choice. Oh, if you aren't getting any casual sex, then yes it can seem like the abuse and debasing of something magical; I felt the same at university too, although in my case it was the girl I adoring being banged on the world's squeekiest bed in the flat above mine, rather than in a shower. IT'S A CRIME I TELL YOU! Except it's not. It's the choice between two consenting minds to mutually pleasure each other. And isn't the world bad enough without denying people any further pleasures too?


And that's why God invented vibrators. Plenty of teenage females are able to orgasm during intercourse, and plenty of adult females are not. Either way, it doesn't support the stated point.

Or men can stop being so damn lazy and insecure and actually use the vibrators as part of sex within relationships as well, so intercourse is fun for both. It's not all about where Mr Penis gets you know guys. And women, if you know you have problems achieving satisfaction, whip that sucker out... You'll be surprised how many men are quite happy to try using all kinds of things.

[Octopus Rex]

Amen Brother.

[FifteenHours]

And a round of applause for Titler *The crowd goes wild!* *HORAAHH!!!*

[jetfx]

teenage girls are entirely capable of enjoying sex as well.That doesn't mean they usually have very good sex at that age.

[Noble]

That is pointless speculation jetfx.

[mlai]

Recreational sex is just as neutral as recreational sports. You can play tennis with casual acquaintances, you can do the same with sex.

You get injured on the court or field, sprain your ankle or break your hand or whatever. You can similarly face physical dangers of the microbial/viral nature when engaged in sex. You just gotta adhere to the rules and use the correct tools which minimize such risks, just like on the court/field.

Having or not having sex is just like playing or not playing tennis. It doesn't make you any happier or unhappier, and it doesn't make you any better or worse a person (except when talking about the unconscious frustrations of either not getting enough exercise or not getting enough sex). It's just what ppl do with their time.

Somebody who's better at charming girls is just like somebody who's better at playing tennis. I would ask, "So what?" If it makes you feel inadequate and defensive, then you either need to practice more tennis or practice more socializing. It doesn't mean tennis/sex is good or bad. Don't rationalize.

The only reason sex is not pondered on as neutrally as sports is because of cultural trends.

[WhiteGulls]

I think that recreational sex is a fine, if it's with a partner you've been with for some time. However, one of my friends seems to differ greatly on the matter, and she'd prefer it if sex was only there to make babies every once in a while, and no one spoke about it. Hell, she can't even stand someone saying penis or vagina in a non-sexual sense. I've tried asking her why she feels that way, never gotten an answer out of her aside from 'people just shouldn't be comfortable with that sort of thing.'

And that's what I don't get. Why shouldn't people be comfortable with sex? I mean, here you have something that everything - literally every mammel on earth - does. And yet somehow, people still feel that we shouldn't be comfortable with sex. I actually had a friend a few years back who was very, very devout, and refused to go to her church one day because they were talking about sexuality. Not sex, but sexuality in the bible. It frightens me that there are people who refuse to take part in an open discussion in a friendly environment.

I think that the US society - since I can't speak for any others - is entirely backwards in that sense. Here, I can have an open discussion on cannabalism, and have even the most prudish person I know join in, yet the second someone mentions sex, half the group blushes, and decides to walk away. It just makes no sense to me.

[jetfx]

That is pointless speculation jetfx.Quite, but just as there are many who have irresponsible sex, there are many who have bad sex. Younger people tend to have more irresponsible sex because they have little experience, and without much experience one tends to have bad sex too. I doubt for many people here that their first time was positively magical.

My own opinions about recreational sex, which I think is any sort of sex for the point of having fun. I think there's nothing wrong with it, either in a married or single context, but I would choose my partners carefully to prevent emotional distress, pregnancy and infection. It's responsible policy to not just fuck anybody.

[sajuukar]

I admit it... I'm too nerdy to get any :D

If I weren't, I still think sex would be better if you rationed it... it could just be me, but when you abstain from something for long enough, it's that much sweeter once you get it! Sure people should be comfortable with their sexuality and all, but let's not over do it either.

[Noble]

I agree, jetfx, but why is "bad sex" relevant? :p

[jetfx]

I think it's as much a crime as irresponsible sex.

[oneredpanther]

http://www.keiraknightley.com/images/threadometer.jpg

[FifteenHours]

I agree, jetfx, but why is "bad sex" relevant?

Perhaps because everyone who's had really bad sex has a problem with people enjoying it out of jealousy?
hehe. I'm just kidding. However, I think some stigma towards sex for some people may come from not only religious backgrounds and such, but perhaps also sexist and bad experience point of views. I mean if the first time you had sex you caught some terrible STD, or in some way, shape, or fashion were traumatized, you would prolly have a problem with sex from here on out and try to get others to feel your pain or something.
Whether that's what's actually going on here or not, idk...I'm just trying to maybe find some rationale behind the connection of "bad sex" to stigmas toward sex.

EDIT: I now see that apparently there wasn't really a purpose behind mentioning the bad sex, except to say that it sucks...yeah I suppose bad sex does suck...but that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand...

[EViLMinD]

As long as everyone practices safe sex and no one gets hurt, I’d say have as much sex as you can. Sex is too good, and life is simply too short.

For the sake of (almost) full disclosure, I slept with a lot of women before finally settling down in my first monogamous relationship (of 6 years). Why? Because dating someone and having fun with them do not always go hand in hand. Why go through the BS of a mock relationship just to get to the good stuff? I’d always tell women what I wanted because I don’t believe in manipulating people; I was raised to tell the truth. Women respected that, even if they did not agree with me. They took it as a sign of confidence, I suppose. Well, whatever it was...it usually worked. Hell, it made some of ‘em what me more. Made the whole affair all the more challenging: “I’ll change him”

Also, woman can be pigs too. Not sure if you all know this...but they can be just as emotionally removed and ego driven - with regard to bed notches - as us. The womans liberation movement was awesome for that. Thanks prohibition !

[Commander ASOP]

Ok about my young girls not enjoying sex comment.

I probably should have been more specific not graphic mind you.

Yes young women have sexual desires and the ability to achive orgasim. Actually just had the talk with my daughter and god dauguther who are not actually teenagers yet. You can not belive how awakward it is to try to expline that while it is ok to touch yourself you need to be in a place not so public.

I am sure sex toys would provide them with pleasure as well.

I was refering to the whole sexual experince that young girls usually have with young boys. Most of the time it does not result in pleasure for her. Not that I condone older men and yooung girls. Most teenage girls are not assertive enough to ask for what they want or need in bed. Most young boys also really don't care.

Also in my conversations with women thoughout my life it appears that while sex may have been ok at the beginning at some point in their devlopment they became able to have what I call the big O. If this is psychological, physicalogical, or just more experince for all parties involved I do not know.

The poster who stated it is better with some one you love and have been with is correct. Since no one lets there full freak out until they have been with you awhile.

[Paladin]

I doubt for many people here that their first time was positively magical.
Let's be honest here: This is not about age. It really doesn't matter how long you waited before having your first sexual experience--if you and your partner are both virgins, it will almost certainly be awkward and not super enjoyable for at least one of you.

This is true even if you don't have sex until your wedding night at the age of 30.

To put it bluntly: Virgins have bad sex. It's unavoidable. Therefore, you might as well start practicing early, and get in more years of good sex later.

[FifteenHours]

Commander_ASOP, I must say that I respect you alot and hats off to you, for going through the sex talk with your children in the "Sex is not dirty" manner. I think it's a major issue in todays society, that too many people either sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist, while the other half seem to be determined to grind it into the minds of the impressionable that sex is a terrible plague upon mankind, and will surely be the death of all.
You're right too that most young boys don't care..I admit when I was younger I was pretty much unaware of how to pleasure a woman...after I grew up a bit I realized that alot more satisfaction came from satisfying my partner's needs more than my own. It sounds corny and cheesy, but making love is better than just mindless fucking...even when it's still rough and stuff hehe.
Kids are having sex at younger ages nowadays, and though it sucks to see the negative results of it, I think that the negatives occur so much cause the current mindset of society is to preach abstinence because sex is bad....the problem is most kids don't understand how something that feels so good can be bad...this confusion leads to pretty much ignoring the preaching and doing what you will. Society needs to realize that abstinence isn't working, and that we must be teaching safety instead...that if you can't abstain from it, that you at least must be careful with it. Which is part of what is bugging me about the HPV vaccine thing I mentioned earlier. One legislator said "that the only 100% way to not get the disease is to abstain from sex until marriage with an unaffected partner in a monogamous relationship". However, the report then showed a woman with Cervical cancer from HPV...who got it well after marriage..because she was raped. Sometimes the choice to not abstain is not a mutual decision by any means, and it's important that we as a responsible society can protect ourselves and our children from STDs and the like if we can.

[The5thElephant]

This whole sex thing sounds interesting.

Can someone give me some pointers as to where I can purchase a nice package of sex?

[Noble]

The motel down on lexington avenue usually has a sale going on.

[tyrion]

RF; firstly I respect your choice to abstain from sex. However I am amazed that you feel you can take the stance that recreational sex is inherently evil and expect many people to tow the line.

I am in a long term relationship but for several years prior to this engaged in casual sex with a significant number of people, including the young lady I am now engaged to. I've settled now but I do not regret those years and were I to have my time again I would do the same. At no point have I caught an STD, nor do I have a string of illegitimate children. Also I can safely say absolutely no gold diggers have been silly enough to have come (no pun intended) my way. Stating that recreational sex is responsible for such a large portion of society's ills goes beyond simply being a fallacy, it's downright silly. People do it simply because it is harmless fun.

Recreational sex has many precedents throughout the animal kingdom, despite your assertions, bonobo society in particular revolves around it. We are far from being the only species to engage in sex for fun. There are in fact many biological and evolutionary reasons why we do so.

Just a small point BigFish, but what makes you think recreational sex only appeared over the last thirty years? It's been happening in pretty much every human society we have anything like enough historical evidence to examine, the Romans were and still are (retrospectively) famous for their orgies.

[BigFish]

Just a small point BigFish, but what makes you think recreational sex only appeared over the last thirty years? It's been happening in pretty much every human society we have anything like enough historical evidence to examine, the Romans were and still are (retrospectively) famous for their orgies.This is a very good point,

The Roman example, while pointing out a massive hole in my stament, isnt the ideal example. The Romen orgies tended to be limited to certain periods of Roman history and contained within certain social classes (in general) which limited the spread of STDs. Also untill recently, people often didnt have unwanted pregnancys, the short life span and infant mortality rate kinda negated the fact. The short lifespan also ment that the debilitaing effects of STDs never really manifested themselves. Even today, people have irrisponsible casual sex.

It doesnt negate the fact that my statment does have a glaring hole in it. lol

I should have said that within the last 30 years is when we can have almost guranteed safe recreational sex and not be condemned for it.



Tyrion 1 : 0 BigFish

:ion:

[BlackLabel]

Sex is good. Sex is fun. Do it. Protect yourself and your loved one. Die happy.

[Mac_Bug]

Look, traditionally there was no never any taboo against having children, for one thing because there never really were this concept of child support payments, and two having as many kids as you can is really the name of the game when it comes to retirement. In old times you really have aristocrats coming together to do ballroom dancing, but in modern times it's just one hot sweaty hip hop trance orgy, so it's a completely different social norm. Prior to the 90s AIDS was known as a homosexual's disease, and certainly if you look at some porn from the 60s and 70s there is this actual freedom in what they do without the stigma of STDs. A few decades ago everyone smoke cigarettes too.

[Timeless]

If there were no STDs or the risk of getting someone pregnant, I'd be all for recreational sex. In theory, it's absolutely fantastic. :)

[Raver]

Whats so horrible about it? I've had a girlfriend who used to be terrified every time her period was about to come because she feared she was prenant, but after a while she relaxed about the whole thing and we had a good ole time. That was one girlfriend, we broke up but we're still very good friends now.

Recreational sex is fine in its own way,Im only 16, I have a friend, we go and see movies with other friends, go over to each other's house, she has a PS2 and loves video games so all the better for me so when i go over to her house im not bored outta my brain but we have sex. Because we enjoy it, we're not lovers we're simply friends and we do it because we enjoy and it even better, there's no commitment.

If one of us were to suddenly get a partner and started sleeping with them, there'd be no hard feelings, because there was no commitment in the first place. I don't see a problem with recreational sex, as long as you play it safe and accept the fact that things may go wrong, you're better off enjoying it while you can instead of being scared of it. Live life.

[Mac_Bug]

You'll understand why every song is about love and why all the stories about love is about them overcoming adversities soon.

[The5thElephant]

Friends with benefits FTW.

I have two of these situations going on. It's awesome.

[Retroboy]

the Romans were and still are (retrospectively) famous for their orgies. I dominate.

er... without the "trix".

-- Retro

[A176]

this thread reminds me of the couple who couldn't concieve. a pastor found the the cause of which being, they weren't having sex. someone find me a link to the story, stat.

[Ramrod]

I'm too nice to you, A176. (http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/nosex.asp)

This thread depresses me. It reminds me how long it's been since I last got some. Oh, and I'm completely with 5th. If you think sex for fun is evil, you're just not doing it right.

[Mr.Popo]

Tried the friends with benefits thing with an ex. Turns out she was still crazy.

Wear a rubber, make sure she doesn't take it seriously either, and recreational sex is A-OK.

[Siguld_001]

Sex is good. Sex is fun. Do it. Protect yourself and your loved one. Die happy.

QTF, the most worthwhile comment in this thread IMO.

Recreational Sex is one of my favorite pastimes, its kinda like Gears Of War, if people act as a team, its much more fun than if everyone just acts like its Quake 3 and tries to make the kill limit before everyone else.

Considering my previous statement its a fucking miracle that I get any at all.

[FifteenHours]

LOL. Siguld...it truly is a miracle to get any at all making game references to describe sex. Any nerdy comments will prolly quickly put a stop to getting sex. My dad, my bro, and myself were one day trying to come up with the stupidest sexual innuendos...while flipping through the channels we came across Tron, and I so won our little game when I said "I'd sure love to compile her code!"
Nerdiness and sex don't mix well hehe.

[0dyguru]

A grab it and stab it, catch and release life style can be so good. Later in life it will help you keep the one that you don’t release from creating posts on craigslist titled “My husband doesn’t please me” From what I read it is also good for your health. Both physical and mental.

Oh yeah always wear a condom it prevents diseases and 18 years of installments for services rendered.

O` Jeah!!! The good old days. So many bitches, so little time.

~0dyguru

[Hiroshi_Tea]

hm....recreations sex is just wrong
sex was made for reporduction
not just for sport

I might as well have Tism's
"everyone else has had more sex than me"
as my theme song

[BigFish]

hm....recreations sex is just wrong
sex was made for reporduction
not just for sport
You owe it to God (or Charles Darwin for those of an atheist persuasion) to have as much casual sex as possible.

God/evolution has blessed us with the urge to have sex and to get enjoyment from it! This in itself is a good reason to have sex!. Specifically we were blessed with the orgasm so we would go forth and multiply, a lot. If it wasnt for the orgasm the last hundred thousand or so years of human existance must have been a bit of a chore.
Now, thanks to the wonderousness of modern life we dont need to pop out as many children as possible with as many differant partners as possible as quick as possible to ensure our genes continuity. And thanks to the magic of condoms we can make sex safe! We might as well make the most of this, now slightly outmoded instinct, to have a little fun and thank God/evolution for providing is with the orgasm and thus ensuring our species continued existance! Yay!


I'm going to hell for sure now.

BigFish

EDIT: Hiroshi_Tea, im not specifically having a go at you, yours was just the first anti-sex post I could see. No hard feelings : )

[0dyguru]

Yes!!! Thank God (or Charles Darwin) for orgasms.

~0dyguru

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I know this is a few pages back now but:


Of course the reasons to still pretend that sex is not desired are likely: a) misplaced or misinterpreted religous brainwashing or b) an unsophisticated cover for the fact that one is simply too nerdy to get any!So lets see... I'm not religious and never have been, I've been in a position where I could have had sex if I desired and chose not to... where exactly do I fit in here, Panth?

[FifteenHours]

I suspect he may be referring to complete denial of desire 100% of the time in his statement. We don't normally want it all the damn time in our lives...I think he's just saying that to say you never desire sex is completely lying to yourself and those around you.

[Hiroshi_Tea]

@bigfish
i hold no offense to any comment agaist my opinion
as that's what these comments are,
opinions

i hold a very conservative view on sex
dispite my age
it's procreation and resevered for intimate couples
(exclusively marriage)
i fully understand what people are thinking
when they say that it's human nature
but is all human nature good?

i beileve that we all are naturally evil
and skew good things, like sex
into somthing foul by making them too commonplace

[n0z3k1ll3r]

That would depend on your definition of desire... there's no point in my life where I have thought "I want to have sex with this person now". But there are points where I've thought "I would like to have sex with this person some time".

[Paladin]

i beileve that we all are naturally evil
And right there is the rest of the world's problem with religion.

[FifteenHours]

Well if you are thinking that you'd like to have sex with someone period, then should opportunity present itself, your mind will be set to accept such a thing. Cause if you only always ever thought "I'd like to have sex with this person sometime" then you could technically never reach that point, as the literal perception of your statement would suggest the event always resides within the future...That's not to say every person you meet you wanna have sex with of course, it just means that when you equate sex even in a hypothetical or future desire sense, it still means that the desire is there, and that most likely though you may not attempt to make opportunity happen b/c of your obvious nature to want sex later rather than sooner, that if opportunity did occur in a situation (such as the other person attempting to seduce you) there is a good chance that you will then have the desire to have sex with that person then. Perhaps you'll turn it down believing you're "not ready" but the desire will probably still be there. That's not to say that every time someone offers, you can and will jump on it, just that you will be far more susceptible if it ever occurred to you to have sex with that person eventually.
@Hiroshi_Tea
While I disagree with your statement, I respect it quite a bit. I do agree to some degree that sex is better left to intimate couples, however the exclusivity to marriage is something I don't agree with. I feel my sex life and the sex life of my partner has been bettered because of the choice to have a close loving relationship with intimate sex. I also feel that limiting sex to a marriage only thing causes a lot of misguided thinking to jump straight into marriage...that even if you are not consciously wanting to get married specifically for sex, that the instinct to do so will cloud proper judgment, and may be part of the drastic levels of unhappiness in marriages across America, amongst an assortment of other variables.
Lastly, to say that sex is specifically only for procreational purposes is denying the pleasurable nature of it, and the health factors involved with sex. Sex is good for your immune system, good for your mind, good for avoiding prostate cancer, and overall is extremely good for your body. Too much irresponsible sex can cause a problem, such as eating too much can cause a problem if something goes wrong, however when done properly sex can be extremely healthy.
Lastly, though not all of human nature is good per se, at the same time sex is not a bad part of human nature...murdering, lying, stealing...these parts of human nature are not good...to say we are naturally evil too is to deny the idea of being designed in the image of God (to the non-Christians in the audience I apologize), or is to say that that in turn implies the evil of God, which I must say is prolly not what any Christian would believe.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

FifteenHours: I've more refrained because I don't think my relationships have reached the stage where I'd like to commit to them that way.

[FifteenHours]

I can certainly respect that. I'm just saying that the desire is there is all. I'm mostly commenting in regards to the type of people who pretend like they don't desire to have sex at all, or who feel shameful cause of it. I can respect the choice to not satisfy the desire, until it turns into a judgmental tool for attacking others (in the case of religious/conservative/anti-sex whack jobs) or an oddly distorted view of reality.

[ceejayoz]

it's procreation and resevered for intimate couples
(exclusively marriage) What about couples who are infertile? No procreation, no sex?

[Raver]

i beileve that we all are naturally evil

And right there is the rest of the world's problem with religion.

Paladin, my respect for you just climbed a few notches ;).

On a different note, while I think that people who think people are naturally evil and that sex is a bad, naughty thing are loonies' , I say live and let let. If they don't bother me, don't stop me doing what I want to do and don't stop me from enjoying myself in my own personal way, or that of my friends ;), I won't do anything to them, I won't give them crap for the way their choose to live their life.

If they enjoy and their and find it fulfilling, good for them. It only gets me angry when others try and force their opinions on me (not that I'm saying that that is happening here, I'm simply stating).

Cj: While I agree with you completely, is it the actual act of procreation that Christians or other religious people believe sacred? Or is it just the whole 'no sex out of wedlock' thing? If it's the second, then whats the problem :p.

[FifteenHours]

Well the definition of procreation specifically means to have children...so by saying sex is for procreation only is to say that if you're not going to have kids, you shouldn't be having sex...which is what CJ appears to have a problem with accepting the logic of, as do I.


If they don't bother me, don't stop me doing what I want to do and don't stop me from enjoying myself in my own personal way, or that of my friends , I won't do anything to them, I won't give them crap for the way their choose to live their life.

This is what I believe as well. The only reason I take a stance in debates like this, is because there are alot of people out there who do wanna make other people follow their rules, their way...
Even though I do believe in sex before marriage, at the same time I do not support the idea that sex before marriage is THE way to do things, and that choosing to wait til marriage is stupid. I am merely stating my opinions in regards to either the people who think abstinence and no sex til marriage is the only way to go, or the people who may have some strange illogical sentiment in their thinking towards sex.

[Higgen]

i beileve that we all are naturally evil
And right there is the rest of the world's problem with religion.


How does your opinion of another person's philosophy differ from their opinion of your philosophy?

[Mac_Bug]

I'm totally in favor of banning you ppl from having sex.

[Paladin]

How does your opinion of another person's philosophy differ from their opinion of your philosophy?
The obvious difference is that believing mankind is inherently evil leads to all sorts of abusive policies, whereas believing the opposite does not.

[Raver]

It really depends if your philosophy is either a load of BS or is even slightly logical.


i beileve that we all are naturally evil

This philosophy is not the latter.

[Unk]

I'm totally in favor of banning you ppl from having sex.
On the contrary, I believe this entire thread needs to go out and get laid.

[Paladin]

Yeah, I'm basically married. I get laid whenever I want it.

[Raver]

Same here, 'cept for the commitment bit ;).

[Paladin]

/me shrugs*

Well, I'm gay too. So I mean, even if I weren't in a committed relationship it's not like I couldn't get some any night I wanted. If you're gay and hard up, you must be really freakin' ugly. Or just really obnoxious or something.

[Lrkr]

To make a little sidenote to the discussion :


I'm a big fan of recreational sex. In fact I'm a wreck today because me and my partner stayed up 'till 5 am yesterday in an unforeseen love-making marathon; and i'm paying the price right now :D

* Lrkr takes another sip from his third coffee


I'm gonna have to say though:
I'm pretty much convinced, that if people would stop wasting soooooo muuuuuuuuch time and effort to get into other peoples pants; the freed up energy could be put to a myriad of more functional uses

So yeah I think recreational sex is wrong; but only in a would be Utopian Ubermensch society; a gestalt that I can begin to imagine, but for sure do not observe around me as current reality.

* Lrkr shrugs

[Paladin]

Not really Lrkr, the sexual frustration would pretty much kill their productivity.

[Lrkr]

I think assuming that a priori is as lazy and dogmatic as equating recreational sex with diseases and bankrupcy.

You are just going to have a very hard time to prove what you just said in current society, because it, on a commercial and popular level at least, is doing it's best to make it look like everything revolves around the beast with two backs.
If you ask a seksuologist these days to help you prove your point; you have to remember that seksuologists are making bundles of cash by defending the premise that people are having all sorts of sexual inhibitions and frustrations. The Kinsey days are over though, and I don't regard contemporary seksuologists as a reliable source for objective data, I'm sorry ,to me they are just riding the same cash cow as the rest of the 'industry' and why would they get off now ?

Sex is so omnipresent everywhere in western contemporary culture that if someone isn't on Oprah explaining their sex life every second tuesday; or buying their nephew the newest revolution in lubricant for his birthday; or downloading pr0n at work is considered a prude or at least is pressured by his surrounding into believing that someting is wrong with them.

That's sexual frustration too, you see ! This ridiculous childish need our culture seems to have to affirm and reaffirm the glory of casual sex.
If all those people talking and discussing about it would just stfu and actually got on with the actual activity I would already be way less :bleh: with the whole situation.

in short : less talkin' mo' humpin'

[Plasma]

Wow, Im amazed at the number of people who in this day and age *still* look at sex as some kind of inherently evil act.

I really dont think anything I say will change their minds so Im just gonna respond to a few points that caught my eye:

Pally: my first sex was *very* enjoyable but I was with an experienced partner (My current one of 4-5 years now) but not as good as later sex . Although it was enjoyable for her to so Im not sure you virgin = horrible sex thing is totally true, I did have very good sex ed from my parental unit that left few/no blind spots.

Big Fish: Im an atheist but I'll stick to thanking god for my orgasm cuz when I cry out "Oh Charles Darwin" in bed my other half gets tetchy/scared/jealous

OP: where the hell have you been pulling to meet VD infected married gold diggers and still gotten poor sex???

[tyrion]

Can someone help me out, what's a seksuologist?

[Plasma]

I think it was meant to be Sexologist : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexologist

[Lrkr]

yeah sorry in my language it's called 'seksuoloog'; just forgot to translate :p

[Paladin]

Pally: my first sex was *very* enjoyable but I was with an experienced partner (My current one of 4-5 years now) but not as good as later sex . Although it was enjoyable for her to so Im not sure you virgin = horrible sex thing is totally true, I did have very good sex ed from my parental unit that left few/no blind spots.
No, that was my point actually, that the only way it's good for a virgin is if he or she is with a more experienced partner. Sadly we have this cultural value that causes most virgins to look for other virgins to hook up with, leading to bad sex.

[Higgen]

The obvious difference is that believing mankind is inherently evil leads to all sorts of abusive policies, whereas believing the opposite does not.



I'm not following you. How exactly does believing that mankind is inherantly evil lead to abusive policies? It seems to me that any laws that would prevent people from doing bad things are necessary whether or not people are born evil. There are evil people, whether or not they were born that way. Also, this view is hardly unique to religious views...plenty of pessimistic people believe that people are naturally evil.



It really depends if your philosophy is either a load of BS or is even slightly logical.

I'd say there's quite a lot of "evidence" for either opinion. In other words, none. It's opinion, which are formed by personal experiences, emotions, values, whatever. To try to call such a broad philosophy 'logical' is rather humorous.

What I'm getting at, here, is people are so upset at being demonized by others that in retribution they end up doing the exact same thing, making you no better.

Edit: Basically, I'm on the same page as Lrkr. It basically amounts to trying to change the status queue by doing exactly what the other side has done. You're not exactly forcing your view on others, but there's plenty of pressure for it. IMO, that's just as bad. /shrug

[Paladin]

Do you really need someone to explain to you all the historical effects of the belief that man is inherently evil? They are many and quite horrifying.

[Plasma]

Pally: I dont think I agree that two virgins would be automatically bad, perhaps not great but with decent sex ed and more openess about sex in general it should at least be satisfying. Some of the stories I have heard from friends about their first time is just horrifying to me, a lack of ,um technical I suppose, knowledge combined with a lack of any realistic frame of reference for what sex should be like.


/edit: Laws dont prevent people from doing "evil", magic words rarely have any effect on the real world.

For example words in a book wont stop me from running 6 inches of steel through your heart (unless your holding a big book in front of you) . What does stop me (apart from the whole internet not knowing you thing) is the fact that I cant think of a damn good reason to do it: Self defence/defence of others and mercy are about the only ones i can think of.

All laws do is define punishments for those who do things other dissaprove of, few of which aimed at "evil".

For example drug laws or anti-sodomy laws, I see so evil done in the proccess of smoking/injecting/swalling narcotics or having consentual intercourse with another.

[BmB]

Whoa, little late here... anyways:

BmB23 - There is no such thing as an ultimate purpose for something that came out of a bunch of random mutations.
Please. Sex undeniably has an ultimate purpose: Reproduction! Without the need for reproduction, no sex. The same cannot be said for a world without pleasure or social interactions. So, as I said. No road, whatever much more there is to it, is not worth it if you don't like the goal. I don't know what my goal is, but I do know what it isn't.

[The5thElephant]

BmB23 - There are no such things as ultimate purposes in general. There are simply causes and effects. Whether a certain effect is the reason that this phenomenon exists in humans doesn't matter to me because I can pick and choose which effects I wish to have from the cause.

I can choose to have sex and not have children, thus my "ultimate purpose" in this action is to either have pleasure, give pleasure, or get STDs. And I assume no one really wants the latter, including me.

In the long run basically everything evolved for the purpose of reproduction. Anything that benefits survival is allowing reproduction. Should you avoid doing anything just because it is something that evolved from the need to reproduce?

There are plenty of examples of human behavior which have some other "ultimate purpose" (to use your terminology) yet I am sure you still perform even if that purpose is not what you want since you can easily avoid that outcome.

Your system of logical thought is just so much fun BmB23.

[Higgen]

First off, I'm only using the word "evil" because it was what was used before I came in. If you're arguing against religious ideology, then they mostly believe that people are born with "sin". An important difference, because they also generally believe that no one is above sin. However, there are plenty of religious and non religious people who believe that man is born "evil" as well.

Second, here's what the internets have to say about the concept of inherent evil:

This is the concept that people are inherently evil. If people were left alone without controls they would all tend to violence, selfishness, etc, etc.
As a result of this belief, adherents believe that it is necessary to apply controls on people at all times to prevent this natural tendency from coming out. As we are all born evil, education (or at least societal normalisation and assimilation) is a particular priority

Generally this means proselytizing, but it can also lead to laws. I imagine that you've heard of Joseph Campbell and agree with his assertions that the concept of inherant evil was the main factor of Western Civilizations bloody history, and to an extent, I believe this to be true. I should have been clearer earlier, because I do believe that the belief of inherant evil can lead to atrocities. The key words here are can and lead. Look at the above quote. There are two seperate ideas. The first is that people are born "evil" the second is that this leads to the listed actions. However, it's plenty easy to stop at the first without progressing to the second.

I believe man is inherantly "evil" because I'm a raging pessimist. However, I see no need for recourse on this fact beyond the strictures most societies already dictate. This is where laws come in. Laws are nothing more than custom and policy which are determined by what a society deems to be "evil". Almost everywhere, it is common consensus that it would be "evil" to plunge 6 inches of steel through my heart. In fact, you yourself already described yourself as feeling it is "evil": unnecessary and with consequences to the victim that you would feel bad about. You broke your own moral law. But if someone doesn't have that moral law, society deems it necessary to create one for them. It doesn't matter if someone is born evil or they become evil through experience, the law is there to create consequences either way.

Anyways, as to to the actual original topic, I see no difference between you telling me something is right and someone telling me something is wrong. You're attempting to imprint your belief on me either way. Whether or not the belief is deemed wrong because it "leads" to an action is beside the point for me. You are degrading a belief to get your opinion across and generally that's the worst you can say about anyone holding the opposite belief. Plank out of your own eye kind of thing.

[The5thElephant]

Man is inherently capable of evil, and has desires which may push him towards it, but man is not inherently an evil creature.

However evil is a subjective and non-universal concept, so it can't be inherent to anything anyway.

[Higgen]

We agree on the subject.

I'm just tired of people taking the moral high ground without realizing it places them on the same level as those they're incensed against...call it a pet peeve. Since that's basically all that my argument boils down to, I think I'll stop there, because it is just an opinion.

[Stripe7]

This is the modern era, you can have sex without creating children, and you can create children without having sex. If you think recreational sex is bad, you can stop having any sex, since you can procreate without it.

[MajFauxPas]

Without getting into philosophy or religion (I agree with The5thElephant's post #5)....

Apparently several people in this thread have suddenly discovered something better than sex, and are keeping it to themselves!

Seriously though, even if there were something better than sex (which there is not, unless you're a junkie), you would still want to have sex. If sex were the second best thing in the world, people would still do it.

If sex were way down on the list of good things in life, people would still do it just for fun.

[Dooks Dizzo]

Isn't all sex pretty much recreational? I mean I never go to my wife and say, "Baby lets make love so I can impregnate you..."

[Demonic Spoon]

Recreational sex is bad, full stop. It spreads diseases; adultery shatters families with distressing regularity; the undisciplined find themselves not so much thrown into the deep end as hurled in and kept thrashing down below when they get pregnant; It's a sink for horrendous quantities of time and cash as you wine and dine a lady of your desire, unaware if you've veered into the minefield of a gold-digger whose sole objective is to bleed you white.

All this for "thirty seconds of intense yet confused pleasure", plus understanding the intimate secrets The Joy of Laundry? Is it - really, honestly, and truthfully, after considered reflection - worth the bother?

Only spreads diseases easily when not using a condom. While diseases can still be spread, the risks are far outweighed by the pros.

Pregnancy happens very, very rarely when using birth control and/or a condom (with both, it's damn near impossible to get pregnant). Either way, when that happens, you can have an abortion or, if you don't like that idea, give the kid up for adoption when born.

Recreational sex does not mean you have to mislead women by spending a bunch of $.

[Atomic Chicken]

Sex is sex. Despite my deep conservative and religious views recreational sex is still sex. It comes to a personal level and how relate to it. I don't see sex as something inherently evil, infact it's quite natural. Frankly, I don't care about sex right now and am in no hurry.

Also, from many relationships I've seen between friends and their partners, it makes a very potent weapon. It has plenty of strings attached and spending the night on the couch is a very bad prospect.

[Woolly]

I really wonder what all this "sex is imoral/bad/dirty" things comes from. The socity teaches us that it is but when we grow older a lot of us starts to qestion this view.

[tyrion]

I really have no idea kenja, it seems very strange to me too. Why people feel that a natural function which brings so much pleasure should be somehow "wrong" is actually a real mystery to me.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Only spreads diseases easily when not using a condom. While diseases can still be spread, the risks are far outweighed by the pros.Depends on which disease. Some of them will spread, condom or no condom.

Not to mention condoms have a practical failure rate somewhere around 15% IIRC.

[black_ranger]

um this will sound very stupid to you guys but what's "Recreational sex" :P.

[ceejayoz]

Read the thread, please.

[Starfisher]

Not to mention condoms have a practical failure rate somewhere around 15% IIRC.Failure to do what? I've never had a problem using them properly. You can obviously break them if you do something stupid, but in normal usage, no problems at all.

[BlackLabel]

Guess it depens on the "technique" used....:slow:

[FifteenHours]

The 15% failure rate comes from improper usage (i.e. no lube and such), where as in a normal situation in which the condom is used properly, the failure rate is just under 2% IIRC.

[ceejayoz]

And that's per year, not per use.

[AceRimmer]

Just some info for Kenja: It's not that sex itself is immoral or evil, just the improper use of it, such as homosexual acts*, premarital, child-sex and so on. Certainly we humans enjoy it, so if the act were created to be wrong, surely we wouldn't enjoy it! It's the same with money. it's not evil, but throw in greed and then there's a problem.

Honestly, there's so many stereotypes it's just not funny any more.

*It's the act that's wrong, not the person.

[roflmao]

I agree with Rimmer 100%.
IMO, only one type of sex is good/acceptable. And that is sex within marraige.
As seeing recreational sex not being the above, recreational sex is immoral. But that does not make all types of sex immoral. After all, thats how we keep our species alive :P.

Recreational sex (condom or not) can lead to trouble, and tends to.

[Raver]

There's also the fact that if you asked this question on an internet forum, you'd get people who have either had none of it, or have had bad experiences. You go to school, to a club or a party or whatever and people view it with nothing but positivity. I'm not calling any of you losers or whatever it's just, someone who lives online usually neglects their social life, and so are inexperienced with the act.

There are many exceptions, CJ, Paladin, Myself, and a few others. But for those who haven't done/had it yet, and find people here saying its a terrible thing, don't take their opinions as the be all and end all of the subject, go and experience it for yourself and make up your own mind. You must accept the fact that there are risks, but many will agree with me saying the pros greatly outweigh the cons, and that in most cases, it is worth the risk, if you use the suitable protection.

Make up your own mind on the subject, don't let other's force their opinions on you.

[Robert Frazer]

And that cuts both ways, too. Irrespective of the right or wrong debated on this thread, not everyone is automatically comfortable with the intimacy that derives from sexual intercourse, and the attendant complications of life and aggravated relationships that stem from it, and that such a position is as perfectly natural and acceptable as any other. Going by the arguments used by most of those advocating sex on thsi thread, you decide what you want to do with your own body, and you're in no way 'crippled' or 'abnormal' for choosing not to become involved at that degree. Don't feel that you have to submit to the peer pressure from any group of lugubrious libertines pushing on you that it's OMG LIEK TEH BESTEREST FINK EVA - you're not being shoved into the corner of the school playground anymore.

[Beelzebuddy]

Robert, you need merely compare the language that both sides are using to tell who's trying to pressure the other.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Robert, you need merely compare the language that both sides are using to tell who's trying to pressure the other.I'm seeing "humans are naturally evil" on the one side and "you need to get laid" on the other, so I can spot people being twits on both sides.

Robert, I'm still not quite sure what definition of recreational sex you're going by. If two people love each other and decide to spend the rest of their lives together, but decide that they don't want to formally marry (for whatever reason) is it ok in your opinion to have sex for enjoyment?

[Raver]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm trying NOT to put pressure on anyone, I am simply saying, for those who have not experienced it yet, do not let people tell you what it is like or how do do it, you must experience it for yourself, then make up your own mind.

[Lrkr]

ecreational sex (condom or not) can lead to trouble, and tends to.

getting out of bed in the morning (God watching over you or not) can lead to trouble, and if I'm not mistaken by overlooking history and contemporary news bulletins; it tends to.

===> getting out of bed in the morning is bad / immoral.


Anyone who follows such logic patterns would not be out of bed to post their reasoning on an internet forum; so I hereby command you to vanish in a puff of logic !


:bigwave:

[Dimension]

Sex is awesome.

Used responsibly and with the right partner that you respect, it can be It can be anything from mindless lust to near-ethereal. It can be slow or fast, and at the same time soft or hard, dirty or dewy-eyed. It comes in so many flavors. It can be mutually active, or one of the partners can take any given amount of control and submit the other. It can happen under all kinds of circumstances, from a carefully orchestrated choreography that takes hours to finish to spontaneous release in the restroom of a train going 120 miles an hour. You can practice sex as means to the end of achieving orgasm, or you can make the path the goal. You can aspire for the woman to have many orgasms in rapid succession or build her up to a single one by drawing her out and keep her on the edge for as long as you dare. It can be anything from casual to pivotal, a frantic orgy that lasts the whole night or a single moment that you anticipate for the whole week. It can be a promise, a bond, a language, a show, a contract, a sport, a medicine, a relief, a reassurance and many more things.

Couple this with the foreplay and afterplay, which is a whole world in itself, and the only limit is your own fantasy.

Sex is a wonderful thing, a gift to be used responsibly. anyone who discounts it does not truly understand all the things it can be and mean, either because he never properly experienced it, and/or is blinded by his convictions. he who thinks so shall not judge those who properly understand it.

[noname0112]

...I bet you guys here already tried sex... not to mention how many times. anyway, its your choice, however you should face the consequence of your actions in the end... STD and AIDS are common nowadays, and getting those diseases is kinda easy to get... but the cure is kinda hard to get also.

[Dimension]

however you should face the consequence of your actions in the end... STD and AIDS are common nowadays, and getting those diseases is kinda easy to get... but the cure is kinda hard to get also.

Thats not a matter of having sex, its a matter of being an idiot.

[noname0112]

condoms can give you a bigger percent prevention of STD right? let's just say 60-75%, while the other methods down to 50% below... in the highest %age there is still 35% chance that you could get sick and finding the cure or being cured is about 50-10%...

i conclude that its not the matter of being idiot... for you will not know if your partner have it or dont have it... and even if they have it, its too late for you to know or even if they would tell you, would you even have the guts to do the shagging onto them? And besides, its hard to tell if a certain person has the disease or not...

lastly, prevention is better than cure... but anyway, if you still like doing so, then its your desicion... but just be prepared for the consequence afterwards.

[eXarchProXy]

I've always thought of sex like driving a car. Cars are very very dangerous machines. They have to be respected, and you have to wear your seat belt. I could go out any day and die in my car. BUT it gives me great pleasure and allows me to go where I want, when I want.

Sex can kill you if you aren't responsible about it, not to mention get you in all sorts of trouble. Nobody is arguing with that.


Life is about trade offs. People who try to break things down as one way or the other really have no concept of willpower or responsibility. Trying to be celebate doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you weak because you can't resist urges or choose the proper time to express love for another human being. You put blinders on because it's easier. At least, that's how I see it.

It's like when I hear vegans going on about how great they are for not eating meat. It's a joke. We all have bad habits and vices, or things we do that aren't good for us. I'm willing to bet that some of you who say sex is bad for you eat double whoppers and big macs. The point is, changing one thing about your life doesn't make you a "good" person, or better than anybody else. It means you made a very SIMPLE personal choice and are still flawed. Stay off your high horses please.


Moderation takes strength. Mistakes can be made but life is about mistakes and success. And frankly, I've had a lot of good sex in my 28 years with many partners, and I've never contracted any STD, or given one to anybody. I wouldn't trade those experinces in for anything.


Also, this current debate in america about the new HPV vacination is total and utter shite. If you think it's better that your child have cancer instead of pretending that a vaccination will encourage sex you don't deserve to be a parent. Teens have sex and will always have sex because they want sex. Arm them with knowledge and give them every tool to keep them safe.

The christian right seems to be all about trying to ban anything intelligent like condoms, birth control, the morning after pill, and HPV vaccines so they can say; "If you have sex and something goes wrong that is god punishing you for your evil."

It's a horrible degenerated way to think or live.

[Paladin]

noname, quit making up statistics from your imagination please.

[roflmao]

Make up your own mind on the subject, don't let other's force their opinions on you



No, I wouldnt do so, if it recreational sex can ruin my life completely. It might not, but it sure can. I would not just go try it. People say drugs are evil, so. Are you going to try drugs to decide for yourself, or let them force your their opinion on you? I think the latter.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFLMAO
ecreational sex (condom or not) can lead to trouble, and tends to.



getting out of bed in the morning (God watching over you or not) can lead to trouble, and if I'm not mistaken by overlooking history and contemporary news bulletins; it tends to.

===> getting out of bed in the morning is bad / immoral.


Anyone who follows such logic patterns would not be out of bed to post their reasoning on an internet forum; so I hereby command you to vanish in a puff of logic !


Ooooh, this logic means that since getting out of the bed in the morning is dangerous. I can go murder somone!! And its no more dangerious then getting out of bed in the morning! =D. Yeah, maybe I can go jump off a bridge and get away with it! WOOW!


Last time I checked, getting out of bed in the mornings is not something that tends to lead to trouble. There is about a .00001% a year that you will get in trouble (serious trouble) when getting out of bed each morning. For recreational sex, its much higher.
So please stop making dumb comparisons. (unless you mean it as a joke)

[noname0112]

HEY!!!



Originally Posted by Paladin
noname, quit making up statistics from your imagination please.

THAT DID NOT CAME FROM MY IMAGINATION!!! I guess your teacher did not teach you about sex education I believe. And I did not make it up in my mind, I actually read it an a health magazine, I even asked doctors about it and then you're thinking that I made that up in my mind? I guess you people are just too overconfident with yerselves... anyway, it's not my loss if something happen to you.

AND FYI!!! I AM NOT MAKING THIS STATISTICS FROM MY IMAGINATION GOT IT!!!

[BigFish]

Other studies have shown that the proper and consistent use of condoms prevented HIV from spreading from an infected partner to a non-infected partner in every case.From Wikipedia. Now, I dont trust wikipedia as far as I could throw it but you must be carefull about what you accept as fact. And also you must be skeptical about how the facts are interpreted, e.g breast feeding results in a significant proportion of STD transmissions, yet you never here people campaign to stop that now do you? lol

According to a 2006 report by the National Institutes of Health,[20] correct and consistent use of latex condoms:

reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected. See overall HIV transmission rates.
reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men by approximately 71% relative to risk when unprotected.
A University of Washington study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2006 reports that proper condom use decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%.[21]

[SquidDNA]

Relative to risk when unprotected. That means if (for example) you have a 40% chance of contracting HIV when unprotected, using a condom reduces that chance to 6%.

And in reality the unprotected risk is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LOWER THAN THAT.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/r402a1t1.gif
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm

That's approximately 0.1% transmission for unprotected vaginal sex, and with the use of condoms that drops to approximately 0.015%.

Also, acknowledging I'm only speaking to the majority of readers:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/HIV_Epidemx3.png/800px-HIV_Epidemx3.png
Fewer than 1% of your potential sexual partners are infected with HIV.

noname, IF THIS DID NOT CAME FROM YOUR IMAGINATION!! THEN LINK TO A REPUTABLE SOURCE GOT IT.

roflmao, some drugs are inherently risky, as is drug-associated culture. Some illegal drugs are almost totally innocuous. Sex can be risky, and it can be safe. Educate yourself and make an informed decision.

[oneredpanther]

Might I offer an armchair hypothesis that religious folk have been brainwashed over hundreds (thousands?) of years into believing that sex was evil as a form of control.

Any self-respecting religious institution is at odds with itself when its people are allowed to run around doing whatever they please and having fun. Making people believe that the most fun things are inherently evil is a great way to exert control over their lives in the name of 'God' and therefore your institution. It's simply a form of restrictive control by an organisation.

[noname0112]

...maybe, that's all what you aethists see it. however in the end... i guess it is not about all the fun that you get, but also to keep you safe from unexpected consequence that you get from doing it. its not making people believe that it is evil, but sex have harmful consequences once you do it the wrong way... thats why its being restricted, and for me that reason is acceptable.

----------------------

(Sorry my english is bad)

Anyone help me in putting signatures?

[Dimension]

"I guess it is not about all the fun that you get, but also to keep you safe from unexpected consequence that you get from doing it."

I'd say if any of the consequences are unexpected, you don't know what you're doing in the first place.

"its not making people believe that it is evil, but sex have harmful consequences once you do it the wrong way... thats why its being restricted"

There is no sense restricting it once you know the dangers.

[noname0112]

...but that's how I understood what our religion tells us. so far, i find some of it true.

[SquidDNA]

Can we not have another religion thread this quarter, please. Back to the ethics and public health.

[noname0112]

okay, about what you said from before SquidDNA... like telling me that my stats came from my imagination. i may have exaggerated some facts there, but to tell you the truth... the 1% or lower percentage of being infected can still pose a threat and once you get infected by HIV there's no getting out of it. That's what I mean to say a while ago...

------------

(my grammar sucks)

hope someone will help me with my grammar

need help in putting sigs here, somebody help...

[SquidDNA]

Seriously. I am going to stop with the simple cleanups and start handing out warnings. This is a discussion about sex, not a discussion about religion.

noname, the death rate in 2005 for auto accidents was 14.7 per 100,000 people, which is 0.0147% -- approximately the same final risk. That was for the whole year, so it's not directly statistically comparable, but keep in mind that fewer than one percent of your potential sexual partners have HIV, so it puts it back into the same ballpark. Using a condom when having sex is roughly as safe as getting in your car and going to work.

[Mullertime]

Just bacause there's a risk, doesn't mean you should abstain from it.

If you tackle the sitaution responsibly, then there is little-to-no problem!
The spread of disease is mainly through irresponsible behaviour. Yes, it can be due to mistakes or accidents, but most of the time, it's through not getting tested or not bothering to get protection or use it properly
All people need is to stop being so bloody selfish, and if they switch sexual partners, get tested!!!
There's such a huge tabbo over getting tested, almost as if getting tested instantly means "You've been sleeping around".
And as most people now are so self-centred and only care about what others think of them, not their own health, they don't bother.

Responsible behaviour isn't about abstaining. It's merely about being careful. If doing this means that the occasional bit of spontaneous sex is missed, big deal.

Just because there's a minor risk, doesn't mean it's instantly bad.
The act itself is good, it's just some of the stupid people who do it.
The only thing that makes recreational sex so bad, is that there are twats who aren't careful and just act so bloody selfishly, that all logic flies out the window.

I find the argument for no recreational sex pretty weak...
It has some risk
Oh nose! There's the same risk as getting killed whilst driving my car (Thanks to SquidDNA's stats), thus, I must not drive my car!!!!!
You wouldn't say that, would you?
I walk to college each day, and over the 4 mile trek, cross at least 10 roads.
Now, there's a risk of me getting hit.
But why should that stop me walking? Why should a small risk stop me from enjoying gettign some air and exercise?

Why the hell should we spend our lives clinging so tightly to life, that we don't have any fun? I'd rather have 20 fun years, than 80 boring ones.
Yes, sex is risky, but if sex is apporached in the right frame of mind, and in a responsible fashion, then the risk is minute. If you get tested, then that makes a whole lot of difference!!!!!!
Those in the anti-sex side are basing their arguments on the actions of the stupid.
As much as this seems the case, the world is not filled with the stupid (Though their numbers are increasing). They are not the type of people to generalise ideas from.

What's more, how does marriage make a huge difference?
(BTW. I'm going to make sure this doesn't go into religious debate. I'm referring to marriage more as the act, not as a religious ceremony)
I mean, the arguments of the anti-recreational sex people, seem to suggest:
-Recreational sex. Bad, dirty, evil, made from bad relationships doomed to failure, the people involved ar eevil and irresponsible
But seem to suggest that:
-Marriage and sex. Oh it's lovely, the people are nice and very loving. It's all beautiful and the situtaion is magical...

I hate to burst your bubble over the 'wonders' of marriage, but marriage isn't so sugarplum.
It can sometimes be sugarplum, but other times, it isn't.
Marriages have just as many problems as relationships with casual sex. I mean, it was suggested that with casual sex, you get women golddiggers
So are you seriosuly sayign that in marriage, you don't get women golddiggers?
Of course you do!
Marriage can be just as messed up as casual relationships.
You can find examples of casual relationships which are stronger than married ones, just as you can find married couples in better relationships than casual ones.

The fact here, is that the key difference isn't the 'label' of married, or the abstinence from a "dirty" act... it's the people

The right people can make a marriage work
Just as the right people can make casual sex absolutely great, and that the relationship will be loving and beautiful

But in the same way you can have bad couples, you can have stupid people in casual relationships, giving the recreational sex a bad name.

Sex in marriage isn't as 'free' from the problems that recreational sex is.
It's absolutely ignorant to think otherwise, to think:
Recreational sex: Death warrant signed
Marrital sex: No problems whatsoever

Sex in all cases is a bit risky, but it isn't worth abstaining over.

So please don't give me this cocky arrogance of 'Sex is evil and recreationla sex is always bad and vile.'
Yes, it can be, but in several other cases, isn't.
Saying:
OMG, 14,000 people got sexually transmitted diseases last year (Not a proper figure. This is made up)
This is a big number, and some might blow it out of proportion and see it as an excuse to abstain.
But by doing this, you overlook a huge big gaping number:

-14,000 got diseases.
-At least several million would have had sex in the year.

The populace of Britain is something like 52,000,000 (i think...)
14,000 from that...
That's hardly anything, is it?

Stop allowing the media to scare you, and stop being so self-centred and self-ritous.

We're here on earth for a good life, not a long life.
I hate to break this to you...
But you can actually have fun and be responsible at the same time

(I'll be back to edit and alter this later. I'm probably going to break this up into sections, to make it easier to read.)

[tyrion]

Just a thought, anyone got any demographics on asexual transmission of HIV/AIDS? Just that it seems like people are equating HIV with sex automatically when it is actually only one of a large number of means of transmission.

[ceejayoz]

Don't feel that you have to submit to the peer pressure from any group of lugubrious libertines pushing on you that it's OMG LIEK TEH BESTEREST FINK EVA - you're not being shoved into the corner of the school playground anymore. Certainly.

I'll offer the corollary, though, that one needn't submit to the pressure coming from the other side, either. It should be a personal decision, not affected by peer pressure, dogma, or scaremongering.

[Robert Frazer]

The difference is though that in today's world it's a fact of life, for good or ill, that a youth's going to subjected to far greater pressure to have sex than not to - just look at the replies to this thread, for one! There's a palpable sense that celibates are swimming against the tide. Regrettable as I find the situation, I'm not operating under any delusion that abstinence is anything approaching common in Western societies, particularly amongst the young. It's thus the more licentious predilictions of the present day that someone is more likely to encounter, and so needs to be more on guard against.

[ceejayoz]

That doesn't make it right to use scaremongering and dogma unsupported by evidence to do it.

[Dooks Dizzo]

I need to clarify a bit about recreational sex, specifically it means having intercourse with someone you're not married to? Or not monogomous with? Because I have recreational sex with my wife pretty regularly, ie; for no other reason than to relax.

For me the end result would be about the same as guns: Be safe, be responsible and have a good time.

[tyrion]

Yet Robert, few (if any) of the replies on this thread have encouraged people to engage in any sexual acts, merely emphasised their right to decide. The single poster doing the most to push their own view on others has been your good self.

Ultimately sex is a natural function which brings great pleasure to the overwhelming majority of the human race. We have an instinct to engage in it, both for reproductive purposes and for pleasure. Your choice to abstain may well be religious or it may stem from wishing to avoid personal relationships which you seem to think are somehow unmanageable.

If religion is the ticket then that's your own choice, but be aware that there are many value systems other than your own and many would be inclined to resent you stating your own as a factual given.

On the other hand, if you feel that inter personal relationships stemming from sex are so difficult to control that you personally could not manage them, then possibly your decision is wise. Nonetheless the majority of human beings who have graced the surface of the planet have taken something more akin to a middle ground. Sometimes things do go wrong and people get hurt, but that is all part of life's rich tapestry. Sex is an inherent part of both our biology and society and the majority feel that life is enriched by it.

[ceejayoz]

I need to clarify a bit about recreational sex, specifically it means having intercourse with someone you're not married to? Or not monogomous with? Because I have recreational sex with my wife pretty regularly, ie; for no other reason than to relax. I think we're mostly using "out of wedlock", not "is fun", as the criteria in this thread.

[BigFish]

Just a thought, anyone got any demographics on asexual transmission of HIV/AIDS? Just that it seems like people are equating HIV with sex automatically when it is actually only one of a large number of means of transmission.Its surprisingly low outside of the IV drug using portions of society. HIV can only survive for a very short time outside of the body, I think 99% of the virus will die in less than a few minutes outside of the host body. The problem is with cells that have a longer lifespan outside the body, such as sperm and blood, can carry it for longer (I think HIV will last for something like 45 minutes in blood). I think, aside from sex you only have to worry about it from dirty needles that have been in someone elses vains within the hour or from badly filtered blood transfusions. HIV transmission from dried/clotted blood, plasm, saliva or other fluids is possible but so vanishingly rare that you may as well consider it impossible.

Other transmissiable diseases are far more tenacious however.

*DISCLAIMER* This is what I can remember from a few years back and may be innacurate, I cant find a citation with anything less vague than I have said already, lol

[Old Painless]

Safe sex is next to completely harmless, i like it, im going to do it, if you dont want to then thats up to you but dont think for a second your anti-sex message is going to influence me or anybody i know because we live in the real world, one were people are free to do as they please and sex (recreational or otherwise) pleases them a lot.

It should be a personal choice.

Safe sex is not physically harmful.

Safe sex is not emotionally harmful.

Safe sex is scientifically proven to release stress-busting hormones and feel-good chemicals helping us deal with a hard day at work or mild/occasional depression.

I can't really think of any downsides to getting laid tbh.

[BigFish]

It should be a personal choice.

Safe sex is not physically harmful.

Safe sex is not emotionally harmful.
It is a personal choice.

Safe sex is very rarely physically harmfull.

Safe sex is vary rarley emotionally harmfull.

Bad luck, bad judgement and self inflicted stupidity can make even safe sex less physically and emotionally safe. No more or less safe than any other activity you do for enjoyment but still with the possibility of going wrong. Dont let that stop you if recreational sex is ok with you, just dont think it will ever be 100% safe.

[Old Painless]

We don't think it is 100% safe though do we, why is that repeated so often when were not even arguing the point ?!?!?

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Painless, you just said this:


Safe sex is not physically harmful.

Safe sex is not emotionally harmful.Please tell me what that means, other than saying it's 100% safe.

[Old Painless]

Dear me, 99.9% then. My point is, who cares ? The risks are so small as to be insignificant, anybody who wants to get picky is more than sufficiently aware themelves that nothing in this world is a 100% certainty, applying that logic to this case means it is as safe as it can be and why bother about the fraction of a percent of nothing.

Any argument to the contrary is put to the sword by the fact that were are here generally in good health rather than a race of diseased, mutated inbred zombies.

if your going to quote me dont miss out this bit:
Safe sex is next to completely harmless

[noname0112]

okay... let's change another topic...

anyway, how does a virgin taste like?

[Kovac]

Like pickled eggs.

[Afoxi]

I'm guessing it tastes like virgin olive oil but human instead of olive oil?

[DatonKallandor]

anyway, how does a virgin taste like?

Tastes like chicken.

[noname0112]

...i you people tasted a lot of them, while i have not... sadly. still the same, virgin since i was born... just got bored of p0rn...

[Dimension]

and here's this thread's death knell. good riddance.