NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I'm not going to lame the blame for this all at the feet of religious folks, because it's not just their fault. A lot of people out there seem to think that sex is bad unless engaged in for the purpose of procreation. That it's bad because you can get diseases, that you can become promiscuous and morally debauched, so on and so on.

There is the power imbalance between straight men having sex and enjoying it (YAY!) and straight women having sex and enjoying it (BOO!). There is the issue of homosexual sex which is generally not about procreation:). There are issues involving 'minors' and the idea of at what age should people start having sex etc. Sex can be such a political and complex issue....

Or it could just be good, dirty fun.

What are your opinions? Should sex be reserved for procreation? Should sex be about pleasure first? What?

1. It is pleasure.
2. It is intimate, or it should be.
3. It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop.
4. Pregnancy can happen - just be sure you have a Plan B (Plan B does not mean "I'll skip town until this all blows over").
5. Monogamy works for me - your mileage may vary.

I voted pleasure. That's the best possible reason to have sex. Way better than getting back at someone by screwing his/her partner or trying to make a screaming infant who you then need to clean up after.

For procreation only!

So sayeth the sheppard! So sayeth the flock!!!

I'm going back to my altar

Pleasure first and foremost, but I don't think you should remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of sex. You have to recognize that the possibility of pregnancy exists, and be prepared for it.

You need another option:

"Pleasure, but procreation would be a nice surprise if it happened"

ie: I won't TRY to have kids, but I won't viciously hate them, either (ie: "no procreation in my future" option) - if they happen, that's just fine.

Pleasure. I'd be surprised if I could still have kids. My son was a certainly a pleasant surprise. :)

1. It is pleasure.
2. It is intimate, or it should be.
3. It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop.
4. Pregnancy can happen - just be sure you have a Plan B (Plan B does not mean "I'll skip town until this all blows over").
5. Monogamy works for me - your mileage may vary.

I agree it should be an intimate act that you do with someone you care for. HOWEVER, every once and a while, some casual sex (while not in a monogamous reliationship, and hopefully somewhere nicer than a toilet stall) is good too. It should be SAFE above all, and procreation needs to be very planned out...not just, "Hey, let's see what happens when we poke holes in this condom!" I'm all for monogamy, but I think people should (if comfortable) get out there and get some experience sexually before they settle down with someone and only get to have sex with that person for the next thirty years. Otherwise, inevitable longings of "I wonder what it's like...." might turn into "I'm going to find out".

I want to encourage my girls to be okay about having, or not having sex. But I want them to do it for themselves, not because they feel pressured into it. I want them to learn about relationships outside of just having sex with someone, and to realise that sex =! relationship. I want them to know the physical and emotional risks, and prepare for them, but not to be afraid of them.

As a form of expression, either for procreation or pleasure, or both. It should have no pre-defined purpose.

Pleasure from here on in. We have the desired amount of children and the wife's tubes are tied.
Now its pure, unadulterated pleasure.

You need another option:

"Pleasure, but procreation would be a nice surprise if it happened"

ie: I won't TRY to have kids, but I won't viciously hate them, either (ie: "no procreation in my future" option) - if they happen, that's just fine.
Then you should probably qualify that with, "I won't TRY to have kids with my monogamous partner, but I won't viciously hate them, either"...unless you're trying to say that baby-making would be a pleasant side-effect of the casual experience you have with multiple partners.

Did the sex without relationship for too long, and it was never satisfying for me. About the same as masturbating, and I can do that myself.

90 percent of the pleasure in sex is mentally enhanced. For me, that means a relationship. For others, it might mean living out fantasies, or wearing rubber suits, etc.

Everyone is a bit different in terms of what pleases them.

Pleasure. I'd be surprised if I could still have kids. My son was a certainly a pleasant surprise. :)
Okay, you're going to have to explain that one. Why would you be surprised if you could still have kids, and was your son a surprise before or after whatever happened to make further procreation seem unlikely?

Okay, you're going to have to explain that one. Why would you be surprised if you could still have kids, and was your son a surprise before or after whatever happened to make further procreation seem unlikely?

For some reason, I get struck in the groin a lot. Always have. :(

I agree it should be an intimate act that you do with someone you care for. HOWEVER, every once and a while, some casual sex (while not in a monogamous reliationship, and hopefully somewhere nicer than a toilet stall) is good too. It should be SAFE above all, and procreation needs to be very planned out...not just, "Hey, let's see what happens when we poke holes in this condom!" I'm all for monogamy, but I think people should (if comfortable) get out there and get some experience sexually before they settle down with someone and only get to have sex with that person for the next thirty years. Otherwise, inevitable longings of "I wonder what it's like...." might turn into "I'm going to find out".

I want to encourage my girls to be okay about having, or not having sex. But I want them to do it for themselves, not because they feel pressured into it. I want them to learn about relationships outside of just having sex with someone, and to realise that sex =! relationship. I want them to know the physical and emotional risks, and prepare for them, but not to be afraid of them.

If you raise your girls to be aware of themselves, happy with who they are and self confident, hopefully, they will be on the path to making the right choices and never feel pressured into things they are uncomfortable with.
I also instill in my kids that I am their father, but I can also be their best friend. I want them to always be confident that no matter how bad things seem or how confused they are, they can talk to me in private about it and I'll be on their side with support,advice from experience and protection. I dont want them to learn lessons the hard way-and hope they will always be comfortable enough to ask me for advice or share a problem with me. I tell my oldest son that he may feel something is the end of his world, but chances are, I can help him to fix it. I also pay very close attention to them,their friends and the things they do and they so far, arent aware of it.

Did the sex without relationship for too long, and it was never satisfying for me. About the same as masturbating, and I can do that myself.That's kind of how I see it anymore...it's what kept me from cheating (I married at 19, and although I'd had some flings before, I would count myself as one who didn't get to 'play the field enough' before marriage.) I thought I was missing out on something, before I realised that the only thing that would be satisfying for me would be a real relationship, not just the sex, and I already had that, so what was the point, really?



90 percent of the pleasure in sex is mentally enhanced. For me, that means a relationship. For others, it might mean living out fantasies, or wearing rubber suits, etc.

Everyone is a bit different in terms of what pleases them.
It's gratifying to hear (see) a man say this. I think your sexual limits are only what you make them within a relationship. If you aren't being satisfied, going outside the relationship isn't a good choice. Improving your sex within the relationship is a much better investment.

It's kind of funny...I had a weird dream last night about a high school boyfriend (it's my 10 year anniversary this year, graduating from high school), and in the dream I met up with him and we decided to have a go at it for old time's sakes:). He was as lame in the sack as he was 10 years ago, and I was terribly disappointed in my dream. I woke up thinking, "I'll take experience and familiarity over the dubious thrills of a fling anyday". Seriously.

It's gratifying to hear (see) a man say this. I think your sexual limits are only what you make them within a relationship. If you aren't being satisfied, going outside the relationship isn't a good choice. Improving your sex within the relationship is a much better investment.

The lesson came home after numerous attempts at being married. I'm happily married for the first time in my life (really and truly happy), and the sex is incredible - no one would believe how good it is. I could get my wife to testify to how good it is, but you wouldn't believe her either.

Being happy with your partner - really and truly happy - makes all the difference in the world, and I wouldn't trade that for anything - it took too damn long to find it.

Dude/Girl, you really need about a hundred more choices in this lil survey. LOL

I think sex should be about love. Not, oh, we're making love, but real love. If you can see yourself with somebody else then you are not in love. You are either lusting or infatuated. And I know what you're gonna say, its all a rerun at this point(even this reply). But, then again, thats my opinion and not necessarily yours. :p

And just in case you are wondering, both me and my gf cannot see ourselves with somebody else, even after a break up or two. :D

Pleasure of course.

Yes I want kids but until I can care for one, sex is going to be about pleasure and fun for me.

Being happy with your partner - really and truly happy - makes all the difference in the world, and I wouldn't trade that for anything - it took too damn long to find it.
Agreed.

However, I think that should be the ultimate goal...but a little practice leading up to it is fine too:).

bugger misread the one I clicked - I say pleasure first and procreation when your ready :)

bugger misread the one I clicked - I say pleasure first and procreation when your ready :)
That's actually what I meant it to say, I just forgot to add that last part in. That's what makes it different from "pleasure first, no procreation in my future".

Pleasure? Other?
It's one out of many ways of expressing my love. :fluffle:
So what do I click?

Clicked "other".

Broad opinion - the answer is yes. Sex is for both procreation and pleasure - largely depending on the intentions of those having it.

Personal opinion - Sex should be an expression of love between two people in a committed relationship. If those two wish to procreate (and can), then sex becomes for procreation. Until then, it is a way to give and receive love and pleasure from your partner. =)

I'm reading Germaine at the moment, so brace yourself:

Isn't that a bit sexist? I've never met a bloke who wanted to have sex for the purpose of knocking up some girl. Outside of dutiful husbands, at least. I think there's still a bit of a cultural expectation that women want sex for procreation rather than recreation. That said, I think it's nice you've made the effort with the poll. Kinda putting the whole 'woman as a sexual being' thing out there as an acceptable notion, rather than just a 'slut.' I salute you. But I don't curtsey. :p

It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop.
I disagree. :) With some of that. I'm quite fond of sex for sex's sake. I wouldn't let the location cheapen the experience - it's just sex, after all. As long as no kids/police catch you. As long as no-one is harmed/offended. As long as it's not so clumsy that you tear the condom. And as long as it's consentual and responsible.

I suspect that this thread just to weed out the NSers who are rootless internet geeks!

Now, I'm not going to lame the blame for this all at the feet of religious folks, because it's not just their fault. A lot of people out there seem to think that sex is bad unless engaged in for the purpose of procreation. That it's bad because you can get diseases, that you can become promiscuous and morally debauched, so on and so on.

There is the power imbalance between straight men having sex and enjoying it (YAY!) and straight women having sex and enjoying it (BOO!). There is the issue of homosexual sex which is generally not about procreation:). There are issues involving 'minors' and the idea of at what age should people start having sex etc. Sex can be such a political and complex issue....

Or it could just be good, dirty fun.

What are your opinions? Should sex be reserved for procreation? Should sex be about pleasure first? What?
i've been on birth control since 3 years before i became sexually active. you figure it out :).

I'm reading Germaine at the moment, so brace yourself:

Isn't that a bit sexist? I've never met a bloke who wanted to have sex for the purpose of knocking up some girl. Outside of dutiful husbands, at least. I think there's still a bit of a cultural expectation that women want sex for procreation rather than recreation. That said, I think it's nice you've made the effort with the poll. Kinda putting the whole 'woman as a sexual being' thing out there as an acceptable notion, rather than just a 'slut.' I salute you. But I don't curtsey. :p


I disagree. :) With some of that. I'm quite fond of sex for sex's sake. I wouldn't let the location cheapen the experience - it's just sex, after all. As long as no kids/police catch you. As long as no-one is harmed/offended. As long as it's not so clumsy that you tear the condom. And as long as it's consentual and responsible.

I suspect that this thread just to weed out the NSers who are rootless internet geeks!

I'm with you. As long as it'sconsensual, sex can be for pleasure, procreation or both.

I would say pleasure first, then procreation when your ready.

I would disagree that sex only brings people closer in a monogamous relationship. As long as both people consent, and the act occurs, then your likely to form some sort of emotional bond. This doesn't always happen, but it can happen with casual flings or polygamous relationships as well as monogamous ones.

Pleasure 1st. Procreation ONLY if humanity's survival depended on it. ;)

Is there any other kind? our illustrious nation is promoting Zero population growth. One child for each Adult. If you don't want to have a child you can volenteer for sterilization and the goverment will auction off your right to child, or award it to deserving couples based on merrit.
Our Spring equinox shagfest it the best in the region and we welcome couples, singles and triplets to partake the festivities. :fluffle:

I say only procratation not for any religous reason, but because evolution created sex only for procreation. Look at how badly some people become addicted to pleasure sex. Evolution made it our prime priority in life but we found a way around it and if accidental pregnancies would stop compleltely, our sex drive would completely atrophy! Being able to trick our body into sexual rewards without procreation is almost as bad as drugs. I say almost because sex is good for you in more ways than one.

I would say pleasure first, then procreation when your ready.

I would disagree that sex only brings people closer in a monogamous relationship. As long as both people consent, and the act occurs, then your likely to form some sort of emotional bond. This doesn't always happen, but it can happen with casual flings or polygamous relationships as well as monogamous ones.

Why would you want to form such a strong bond with someone whom you weren't prepared to spend the rest of your life with?

I'm reading Germaine at the moment, so brace yourself:

Isn't that a bit sexist? I've never met a bloke who wanted to have sex for the purpose of knocking up some girl. Outside of dutiful husbands, at least. I think there's still a bit of a cultural expectation that women want sex for procreation rather than recreation. That said, I think it's nice you've made the effort with the poll. Kinda putting the whole 'woman as a sexual being' thing out there as an acceptable notion, rather than just a 'slut.' I salute you. But I don't curtsey. :p


I disagree. :) With some of that. I'm quite fond of sex for sex's sake. I wouldn't let the location cheapen the experience - it's just sex, after all. As long as no kids/police catch you. As long as no-one is harmed/offended. As long as it's not so clumsy that you tear the condom. And as long as it's consentual and responsible.

I suspect that this thread just to weed out the NSers who are rootless internet geeks!

While I admit that what Germaine did was valuable to the uprising of the feminist movement which had lead to better equality for womanm many of her ideas were beyond simple equality and so anti-male it's ridiculous.

Also, with the bit about blokes not wanting sex for pro-creation outside of marriage. The same could generally be said for many women who have sex as well. Also, when a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage, she still has full rights to that child. When a man has a child outside of marriage, it's not the same. Yes he is the father but often his role in the child's life is diminished outside of a marriage/family system. Also, even outside of marriage, the man needs to be in a stable relationship with the woman who will bare his child, as it's not like a man can impregnate a woman on a one night stand, then collect the child 9 months later and be the father he wishes to be.

Otherwise I like what you have to say. I think sex is great and that all of the stigmas associated with either gender and sex should be equal, instead of things like woman being sluts and guys being studs.

Considering I am still a virgin, I do not feel I can answer this question.

I dunno why it has to be seperate. I mean my fiancee and I are planning for the time, after we wed, when and where we want to start our family. Joking about the traditional meaning of a honeymoon aside, I'm sure the getting down to business aspect will be just as pleasureable as it has been so far. I'm also sure that helping my wife theor her pregnancy, delievery and holding my newborn child will also be pleasureable.

Might change my mind after I'm woken up at 3am by a hungy baby the first time though. ;)

Speaking from a evoultionary standpoint, however, it's obvious that humans devloped for using sex as both pleasure and procreation. Why else then is it damn near impossible to tell when a woman is ready to be impregnated (Yes, I know the language is a little crude, tough), or why the sexual organs for men and women are so over devloped?

I think sex should be for pleasure, especially now...im 18 and in college. why the hell would i think about having a kid?

so to recap, YAY for BOOBIES!

Where's "both"?

People need to be more responsible. Simply put it as that. You get a girl preggo, you don't just leave her.

Where's "both"?

People need to be more responsible. Simply put it as that. You get a girl preggo, you don't just leave her.

I agree. This would solve 70% of the problems we debate on this board.

Considering I am still a virgin, I do not feel I can answer this question.
You can be a virgin and still answer the poll. I did. :D

You can be a virgin and still answer the poll. I did. :D

As did I.

If there was no pleasure in sex, I wouldn't be doing it. Nuff said.

As a form of expression, either for procreation or pleasure, or both. It should have no pre-defined purpose.

/agree

anything more is personal opinion and shouldn't be applied by law.

besides, all this nonsense about relationships and whatever will cease soon enough. in a few generations when std's (a risk) are eliminated, and everybody gets their tubes tied (as artificial means, not physical sex, are much more efficient at inducing wanted pregnancy) the only thing the word "relationship" (in this context) will define is two or more people helping eachother raise two or more children.

honestly, whats the point of monogamy when you run no risk of either an std or pregnancy? because either he/she said she wouldn't share you, or society/religion says its wrong? Doubtful either of those will hold, as theres five reasons anybody won't have sex on the spot with an attractive opposite:

1) STD's
2) Pregnancy
3) Girlfriend/Boyfriend
4) Peers
5) Religion

and in that order, too. 1's on its way out, 2 is already within reach. 3 may hold for awhile, but for any couple not entertaining having a child it'll melt away. 4 will change with the times, always does. 5? Are you joking? Who hasn't had pre-martial sex thats under the age of 40? Eventually monogamy will be just as lost, even among supposidly religious people.

"Why would you want to form such a strong bond [have sex] with someone whom you weren't prepared to spend the rest of your life with?"

- some people, myself included, are a bit weary of jumping into a long-term relationship, let alone signing off the rest of my sexual life, without sampling the goods first to atleast make sure we can get eachother off.

"It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop."

Why not? I see little more then opinion. Define this love you speak of.

"Why would you want to form such a strong bond [have sex] with someone whom you weren't prepared to spend the rest of your life with?"

- some people, myself included, are a bit weary of jumping into a long-term relationship, let alone signing off the rest of my sexual life, without sampling the goods first to atleast make sure we can get eachother off.

"It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop."

Why not? I see little more then opinion. Define this love you speak of.

I think it's the fear, religion or some form of traditionalism that would not allow the meaning of sex turn into being something as simple as having pleasure from 'eating an apple'.

Have to say, I don't appeal to it either that sex should be meaningless or simple.

I would like sex to be something special two people who have some 'level' of commitment. It's the values and importance you place on something, like the difference between a man who likes to keep his car spot clean and someone who don't mind it getting muddy.

/agree

anything more is personal opinion and shouldn't be applied by law.

besides, all this nonsense about relationships and whatever will cease soon enough. in a few generations when std's (a risk) are eliminated, and everybody gets their tubes tied (as artificial means, not physical sex, are much more efficient at inducing wanted pregnancy) the only thing the word "relationship" (in this context) will define is two or more people helping eachother raise two or more children.

honestly, whats the point of monogamy when you run no risk of either an std or pregnancy? because either he/she said she wouldn't share you, or society/religion says its wrong? Doubtful either of those will hold, as theres five reasons anybody won't have sex on the spot with an attractive opposite:

1) STD's
2) Pregnancy
3) Girlfriend/Boyfriend
4) Peers
5) Religion

and in that order, too. 1's on its way out, 2 is already within reach. 3 may hold for awhile, but for any couple not entertaining having a child it'll melt away. 4 will change with the times, always does. 5? Are you joking? Who hasn't had pre-martial sex thats under the age of 40? Eventually monogamy will be just as lost, even among supposidly religious people.

"Why would you want to form such a strong bond [have sex] with someone whom you weren't prepared to spend the rest of your life with?"

- some people, myself included, are a bit weary of jumping into a long-term relationship, let alone signing off the rest of my sexual life, without sampling the goods first to atleast make sure we can get eachother off.

"It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop."

Why not? I see little more then opinion. Define this love you speak of.

The point is the same as why I do not kiss other women, or buy them flowers.

Love is not easy to define, that is why so much symbolism in poetry, writing and song surrounds it - to try to explain it.

I have only had sex with one woman, my current girlfriend, and I don't feel I have lost anything.

Our physical bond is second to our emotional one. It is difficult to put into words how you feel when you meet someone and fall in love.

some people, myself included, are a bit weary of jumping into a long-term relationship, let alone signing off the rest of my sexual life, without sampling the goods first to atleast make sure we can get eachother off.
It's the mental aspect. Being with that one person makes sex into truely making love. And when it's that good, why on Earth would you go somewhere else? I don't really even notice other women as sexual beings anymore and I'm 5,000 miles away from my fiancee.

Your actual mileage may vary of course, but that's my reason. I do agree with the sampling, not only for seeing if you and your future mate are sexually compatable. No matter how long you've been on the Internet, anyone's first few times are akward and with all skills, practice makes perfect.

Why not? I see little more then opinion. Define this love you speak of.
And after that, we can get to the rest of the 6 impossible things before having breakfast. ;)

Obviously sex was intended as the method of procreation, but personally pleasure is the main thing for me. Perhaps in the future, my opinion will change.

I find it sad that if you can't keep a good relationship without sex, it probably means your all idiots and not very good boyfriend/girlfriends.

Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman, in marriage, and no, this is from my own common sense, not religion.

I find it sad that if you can't keep a good relationship without sex, it probably means your all idiots and not very good boyfriend/girlfriends.

Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman, in marriage, and no, this is from my own common sense, not religion.
Nah, that'd be your opinion.

See, I can bold things too.

Nah, that'd be your opinion.

See, I can bold things too.

Common sense and opinion are interchangeable. Most people's common sense isn't really that common anyway.

Why do people have to marry? It's a physical act which is pleasurable. I happen to be in love with my boyfriend, but I wouldn't want to wait until we're married, as that is years away because neither of us are in the financial position to do so, as well as the fact that we want to be in a relationship for a few years before considering it. I object to people who sleep around, mostly because it can be dangerous, but also it says something about character, however, I feel that you saying people are meant to be married first is slightly subjective, don't you?

Common sense and opinion are interchangeable. Most people's common sense isn't really that common anyway.

Yeah, I agree with you. Common sense is just... an irrational gut feeling. I'd change the last sentence to say that "most people's common sense isn't that sensible anyway," though.

I find it sad that if you can't keep a good relationship without sex, it probably means your all idiots and not very good boyfriend/girlfriends.
Generally, insults aren't appreciated. Perhaps it's best to argue your point without resorting to personal attacks?
Just a thought.

Yeh, and use correct grammar!

YOU'RE not your


dickhead

There is a toxic discourse in this forum. The toxin is named Moralin. It is a dangerous toxin because although it does not end any Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here) it sickens and weakens it.

In the good Ancient days we had not yet been exposed to it; we were enjoying sex both as a means of multiplying and as a pleasurable celebration of Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here). Some people were slaves, so they hated life in general; especially Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here), so out of their hordes came the Priests; nasty fellows spreading Moralin into both slaves and other people.

The symptoms of Moralin is Anti-Nature, which turns even Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here) into Weak Sick Sheeple Life (insert cross here). The toxin stayed in western society (imported from the Middle East) throughout the puny rest of the good Ancient days, all through the bad Old days, and now that it finally wears off (beginning in the 1960's) the Priests make those still poisoned furious in their jealousy, and start spreading a new wave of Moralin (Mujaheddin? Taliban? Born-Again?).

Stay healthy. Avoid the poison. Just Say NO!

I feel that you saying people are meant to be married first is slightly subjective, don't you?

Tradition and religion I suppose.

Though I agree with you...

The fact that last time people used to get married first because it's commitment to one another, and have the same focus to raise a family. Procreation over pleasure.

Marriage used to be 'for life'. Nowadays marriage and divorce tend to go hand in hand. :(

Plus last time, there was also a stigma, that virgin women are considered 'used goods'.

For sure it's pleasure when you're with me ... wink wink

Pleasure ... I dont plan on having kids

fun fun fun, whereever and whenever and with whomsoever.

There is a toxic discourse in this forum. The toxin is named Moralin. It is a dangerous toxin because although it does not end any Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here) it sickens and weakens it.

In the good Ancient days we had not yet been exposed to it; we were enjoying sex both as a means of multiplying and as a pleasurable celebration of Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here). Some people were slaves, so they hated life in general; especially Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here), so out of their hordes came the Priests; nasty fellows spreading Moralin into both slaves and other people.

The symptoms of Moralin is Anti-Nature, which turns even Strong Healthy Life (insert ankh here) into Weak Sick Sheeple Life (insert cross here). The toxin stayed in western society (imported from the Middle East) throughout the puny rest of the good Ancient days, all through the bad Old days, and now that it finally wears off (beginning in the 1960's) the Priests make those still poisoned furious in their jealousy, and start spreading a new wave of Moralin (Mujaheddin? Taliban? Born-Again?).

Stay healthy. Avoid the poison. Just Say NO!

I've read that twice. What?

I've read that twice. What?
*cough*4:20*cough*

*cough*4:20*cough*

oooo, kayyyyyyyyyy.

I've read *that* some ten times.

I remain none the wiser.

oooo, kayyyyyyyyyy.

I've read *that* some ten times.

I remain none the wiser.
I'm saying that he/she was smoking a bit of the 'erb...

I'm saying that he/she was smoking a bit of the 'erb...

why is that 4:20 ?

Why is sex necessarily part of a good relationship?

why is that 4:20 ?
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C51986%2C00.html

There ya go.

Why is sex necessarily part of a good relationship?

i have quote a good relationship with my dad, so i'd say that it isn't.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C51986%2C00.html

There ya go.

thanks :)

Why is sex necessarily part of a good relationship?

We all want sex eventually, it's only natural. Weather it's on the first date or after you are married, sex is eventually something that people want in their relationships. Can you have a relationship without sex? Yes. Can you have a marriage without sex? I suppose so. Will it be as good as a relationship/marriage that also involves the partners sharing enjoyable sex with each other? No.

Sex isn't a necessary part of a relationship, but an ideal part.

Marriage used to be 'for life'. Nowadays marriage and divorce tend to go hand in hand. :(

I think it's sad that that's the case now. When I get married (and I am planning to) it will be for life (I hope!). However, I don't think that people should have to abstain until they've found the 'perfect partner'. Also, sex is a very important part in a relationship, if it's bad, you can feel unfulfilled. Having said that, I also don't think that sex should be a basis for staying in a relationship (I had a 9-month relationship without sex and also a very short relationship that was mostly sexual). I have drawn my conclusions from my own experiences, and now I believe that sex is something you should do with someone you care for, not just anyone. I don't see why you need a piece of paper to do that.

I fit into the something else catagory though the second option is somewhat close.

I think that first it is designed by God as the highest expression of intimacy and, yes, pleasure and bonding of two people that is, idealy to be reserved for the sanctity of marriage. And second, for procreation.

Other possible answers might also include, stress relief, exersize, cognative stimulation/boredom relief and probably a few others I haven't thought of.

Pleasure only!
The world is already overpopulated and there is enough accidental pregnancies just to keep the population steady. Honestly, anyone who would choose procreation is out to further the destrution of our world by consuming our resources with more mouths to feed.

If God did not want us to have sex he would not have made it so much fun!

I'm saying that he/she was smoking a bit of the 'erb...

Sorry i just tried a nietzschean angle on the question. i do no longer smoke, tobacco or otherwise. anyway i'm just a stupid goth.

Well, given that it does both it's obviously been designed for both.

I do believe in no sex before marriage, though. Main reason being it'd be more special, and significant. My Christian (I don't like the word 'religious') beliefs are a part of that as well.

Mainly I just don't want to violate what could be somebody else's future wife.

Well, given that it does both it's obviously been designed for both.

I do believe in no sex before marriage, though. Main reason being it'd be more special, and significant. My Christian (I don't like the word 'religious') beliefs are a part of that as well.

Mainly I just don't want to violate what could be somebody else's future wife.

That's very noble of you! My rationale so far has been that I don't want to violate myself... but your motivation sounds much more gallant.

For some reason, I get struck in the groin a lot. Always have. :(
Same here. I have twin sons on the way, so I guess that has nothing to do with it...?

/agree

anything more is personal opinion and shouldn't be applied by law.

besides, all this nonsense about relationships and whatever will cease soon enough. in a few generations when std's (a risk) are eliminated, and everybody gets their tubes tied (as artificial means, not physical sex, are much more efficient at inducing wanted pregnancy) the only thing the word "relationship" (in this context) will define is two or more people helping eachother raise two or more children.

honestly, whats the point of monogamy when you run no risk of either an std or pregnancy? because either he/she said she wouldn't share you, or society/religion says its wrong? Doubtful either of those will hold, as theres five reasons anybody won't have sex on the spot with an attractive opposite:

1) STD's
2) Pregnancy
3) Girlfriend/Boyfriend
4) Peers
5) Religion

and in that order, too. 1's on its way out, 2 is already within reach. 3 may hold for awhile, but for any couple not entertaining having a child it'll melt away. 4 will change with the times, always does. 5? Are you joking? Who hasn't had pre-martial sex thats under the age of 40? Eventually monogamy will be just as lost, even among supposidly religious people.

"Why would you want to form such a strong bond [have sex] with someone whom you weren't prepared to spend the rest of your life with?"

- some people, myself included, are a bit weary of jumping into a long-term relationship, let alone signing off the rest of my sexual life, without sampling the goods first to atleast make sure we can get eachother off.

"It should only be with someone you love - not a careless fuck in the dark with a complete stranger in the toilet stall at the highway rest stop."

Why not? I see little more then opinion. Define this love you speak of.

because once you finally find ONE woman who is willing to have regular sex with you, you quickly learn not to throw her away by making her jealous over some other woman who will fuck you now and then.

Now, I'm not going to lame the blame for this all at the feet of religious folks, because it's not just their fault. A lot of people out there seem to think that sex is bad unless engaged in for the purpose of procreation. That it's bad because you can get diseases, that you can become promiscuous and morally debauched, so on and so on.

There is the power imbalance between straight men having sex and enjoying it (YAY!) and straight women having sex and enjoying it (BOO!). There is the issue of homosexual sex which is generally not about procreation:). There are issues involving 'minors' and the idea of at what age should people start having sex etc. Sex can be such a political and complex issue....

Or it could just be good, dirty fun.

What are your opinions? Should sex be reserved for procreation? Should sex be about pleasure first? What?
Since when were women not allowed to enjoy sex? Even in the stereotypes of men and women, women were fully allowed to enjoy sex, they just weren't supposed to seek after it.

What are your opinions? Should sex be reserved for procreation? Should sex be about pleasure first? What?Sinuhue, you didn't end up answering this on your "Gender Roles" thread, do you think the following is an example of being morally empowered:
[About someone having been raped and not caring] She just doesn't care that much about her pussy. She wasn't educated this way. She usually fucks with anybody who is willing. She didn't make a big deal out of it.

I would pick a poll option of : "It's your own damn business!"

It's not being more or less moral to be more or less promiscuous. It's a matter of taste.

I personally prefer long-term monogamous relationships and sex with someone you know intimately, love and care about (!= marriage). But I don't care if you bonk like horny otters (to borrow a LG phrase :D), just as I'd expect you not to care that sex means something different to me.

Seriously, as long as it is mutually consented to, who bloody cares!

Mainly I just don't want to violate what could be somebody else's future wife.

Violate, what an interesting word.
Makes it sound like after a woman (or possibly a man, but this seems to apply more to women) has had sex, she's somewhat "tainted".
Sure, when I got my new ipod, I wanted it in its original packaging. With nobody else having played with it.
And, I have to admit, I quite wanted my girlfriend to have not been with any other guys.

But, really, she's the same person, whether she's been with someone else or not. She's still just as special. I'd love her just as much. I certainly wouldn't have considered her "violated". In fact, I didn't. (when we started going out, I'd assumed that she had been with her previous boyfriend, as they had been in a long-running relationship).

The idea of someone being "violated" by sex seems very natural to me, but my higher thinking self says "no, that's just stupid, get over it". As long as there are no STD's or other negative effects, how does it possibly hurt?
Are we so worried about our own sexual prowess that we don't want our partners to have experienced anything else?

my opinion is that I'm in a loving relationship, and would *never* cheat on my girl. I love her too much. I also completely would not accept her cheating on me. I would, however, accept her kissing other guys (and girls), and even doing more sexual things than that, as long as I knew about it and was comfortable. We'd need to talk about it.

Sex is not love, and love is not sex. They are seperate things. I have sex with her because I love her, but also for the sex. If I have sex with another girl, it would be for sex alone, and would be, emotionally, completely different. I accept that, and accept she may feel the same.
I'd have jealousy issues with her sleeping with other people, sure. But I'd probably be able to get over them, and I'd definately be able to talk about them.

Sex is for procreation
Sex is for love
Sex is for pleasure
Sex is for a lot of things. They don't *all* have to apply *all* the time.

Sex can be a violation, in some horrible cases. I find it insulting to consider two people who care for each other, or even who don't and just want some fun, to be "violating" each other. That does a serious disservice to the term "violate".

Can someone direct the person who started the debate about liberals and conservatives (not) getting along to this thread? Look at all the people who usually argue being nice to each other!

Um, anyway. As long as both parties (or however many are involved) are going into it with open eyes and no one's looking to deceive another, I don't see any reason for concern.

And I respect those who delay sex for whatever reason, though I hope they're giving serious consideration to indulging in some full-blooded foreplay while they wait...

And I respect those who delay sex for whatever reason, though I hope they're giving serious consideration to indulging in some full-blooded foreplay while they wait...

...for the sake of the children

And, I have to admit, I quite wanted my girlfriend to have not been with any other guys.
Are there still people who are keen on virgins? Besides my chances being slim to find one in my age group, except for the occassional wacko i wouldnt want to be with, the thought makes me shake my head. I dont want to be in a teacher role and would rather like to have a partner who can teach me a few new tricks and vice versa than starting from the bottom of the whole thing.
Btw, pleasure first. Procreation only i dont get, i dont like the thought of having sex once a year, if you allow for some rest after the gestation. Besides, i dont want to go poor feeding lots of kids just to have sex. ;)

Are there still people who are keen on virgins? Besides my chances being slim to find one in my age group, except for the occassional wacko i wouldnt want to be with, the thought makes me shake my head. I dont want to be in a teacher role and would rather like to have a partner who can teach me a few new tricks and vice versa than starting from the bottom of the whole thing.
Btw, pleasure first. Procreation only i dont get, i dont like the thought of having sex once a year, if you allow for some rest after the gestation. Besides, i dont want to go poor feeding lots of kids just to have sex. ;)

Well, if you have two virgin partners, than it really becomes a matter of exploration and new horizons. If you have one partner who is a virgin and one who is not, there will always be an imbalance in the relationship. I know this from experience... sort of.

As for your comment on procreation. For me personally, sex would be pleasure first. I would do whatever I had to to make sure I didn't get my wife pregnant. That would be a real crimp on my financial life.
However, you are incorrect about sex once a year. You can have meaningful sexual interaction almost the whole way through a pregnancy. Some doctors encourage it... I think they said sexual activity would "help balance the hormones out."

personally i believe that you shoudl definatelyx have sex for pleasure but not with just any person you see lying around! it should be with someone you'd be willing to procreate with, just incase accident happen, and they do happen. but that's just me... do as you please!;)

Didn't the Ancient Greeks define it as : Women are for Procreation, Boys are for Recreation?

Now, I'm not going to lame the blame for this all at the feet of religious folks, because it's not just their fault. A lot of people out there seem to think that sex is bad unless engaged in for the purpose of procreation. That it's bad because you can get diseases, that you can become promiscuous and morally debauched, so on and so on.

There is the power imbalance between straight men having sex and enjoying it (YAY!) and straight women having sex and enjoying it (BOO!). There is the issue of homosexual sex which is generally not about procreation:). There are issues involving 'minors' and the idea of at what age should people start having sex etc. Sex can be such a political and complex issue....

Or it could just be good, dirty fun.

What are your opinions? Should sex be reserved for procreation? Should sex be about pleasure first? What?

There seems to be a perception among some people, especially religious folks, that sex for fun = promiscuity. Speaking as someone in a long term, monogamous relationship who has no plans to have children any time soon, it isn't necessarily so. If, say a married couple want to have sex for fun, or to deepen the emotional bond between them, but not for children I can't see how anyone could argue that that's 'debauched', and the risk of STDs is pretty much nil if a couple are faithful.

In any case, I think that if two (or more) consenting adults want to have sex it's no one else's business *why* they're doing it. It's up to them.

Did the sex without relationship for too long, and it was never satisfying for me. About the same as masturbating, and I can do that myself.

90 percent of the pleasure in sex is mentally enhanced.

I'm not really all that qualified to comment, but, I have to say I agree with you immensely. I haven't had sex yet, and in fact I haven't even had a partner-assisted orgasm, but I still think the full-body pleasure I get with my boyfriend is much, much better than the localized orgasms I can get through masturbation. To use his words, "It just doesn't compare."

Any way you want it, baby. Just a warning, I like to get nasty.

Since when were women not allowed to enjoy sex? Even in the stereotypes of men and women, women were fully allowed to enjoy sex, they just weren't supposed to seek after it.

On the contrary. There are still cultures which think it is wrong for a woman to enjoy sex - hence FGM (female genital mutilation), a process specifically designed to keep a woman from ever enjoying sex.

personally i believe that you shoudl definatelyx have sex for pleasure but not with just any person you see lying around! And if you're desparate enough to have sex with just any person you see lying around, give them a poke with a stick first to make sure they're alive.

Sorry, bad necrophelia joke.

My husband and I aren't having kids so it's all about pleasure for us. Yay! :fluffle: