NationStates Jolt Archive

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?I have no idea. Sex is just sex, to me.

Sex isn't love.

It may feel like it is but it isn't

That is the emotional responsibility they are talking about they think they are having feelings of love after they have had sex with someone but it isn't they don't know the difference.

Sex isn't love.

It may feel like it is but it isn't

That is the emotional responsibility they are talking about they think they are having feelings of love after they have had sex with someone but it isn't they don't know the difference.

What he says...

I think it's one of those "on the job" learning experiences, if you can forgive the expression.

I was kind of hoping for someone who believes in this magical responsibility to come here and defend it.

But alas...

Knowing what is, and is not a relationship (I.e. This is actually going somewhere besides boinging like bunnies. Nothing wrong with boining like bunnies if you're a bunny and you like to boing, but if the party of the first part is a bunny who's all a bother for boinging and the party of the second party thinks that this is luv, twue luv, there's gonna be some issues), and of course the whole being able to deal with the consequences of said boining.

Yes, yes I know there is such a thing as contraception, but even in an environment that promotes its use, it be amazing just how many young people don't bother using it and even then, such contraception is neither completely risk free or, depending on the style of boining, disease free.

I was kind of hoping for someone who believes in this magical responsibility to come here and defend it.

But alas...

There is no one on here like that KoL, but you have to give it at least 24 hours.

Though I am sure they are some peope whi can defend it and if they don't want to have sex before marriage (for whatever reason) well who cares that's up to them.

So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

"Emotional responsibility" seems to be something like "thinking that pledging to spend the rest of your life with someone is far, far less significant than engaging in a pleasurable physical act".

"Waiting till marriage" is in essence an insult to people who take the idea of marriage seriously.

If its of any kind of relevance... I prefer to have some kind of emotional bond between me and someone if I do have sex with them. A strong friendship or love, that kinda thing.

?

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone?

Emotionally responsibility isn't created by sex, it is required to have healthy sex and make rational decisions. Decisions like whether or not to use a condom, for example, or being ready to take care of any children that result from the sex.

I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it.

Sex has very much to do with relationships.

I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.

No, but maybe you have a responsibility not to get some girl pregnant and then abuse her and the child because you're angry that it didn't turn out to be the one night stand you'd planned on. For example.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

I'd say that sex is irresponsible if the parties involved have different motives, e.g. trying to build a relationship vs. just wanting sex. There's responsibility present in that you should have the same motive as your partner(s). I wouldn't argue that it's a reason to abstain from sex until marriage, though.

In the event of pregnancy/disease there's also responsibility, but that's probably a different category.

There are different views on intercourse. There are people who simply go from target to target. They seek only to fulfill a selfish desire.

There are people who want to mate for life. They view sex as the ultimate expression of love, saving it only for those they feel they want to spend the rest of their lives with. This isn't completely unnatural, seeing as there are animals that do mate for life and not just the insects that die after the deed is done.

There are people who are in the middle. They don't want to mate for life, but they want it to be more special than just satisfying a desire that's been around since the first animals to reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexuallity, the only true form of masterbation that can get one pregnant).

Sexual desire is strong. It's not only physical, but also emotional. Some people see it only as a means of fulfilling a prehistoric need. And some see it as much more. They see it as the ultimate expression of love. As a way of saying that they are willing to share their life with that special someone and even spread that special someone's genes accross one more generation.

The people who talk about emotional responsibility with sex are of the type that see sex as more than just an exchange of fluid. IMO, there is some emotional responsibility requirement. Such as being sure the other person knows the reason you're, as NERVUN put it, boinging them. Or being willing to deal with any consequences that result from it, like an unexpected child. The basic idea behind the talk of emotional responsibility is that people should only have sex with people they like/care about and would support if they get pregnant and so forth.

"Emotional responsibility" seems to be something like "thinking that pledging to spend the rest of your life with someone is far, far less significant than engaging in a pleasurable physical act".
Where do you get that from? It's not even close. The idea is that there's more involved in it than just physical pleasure. There are a lot of people out there that form a very strong emotional bond with someone because they've had sex. And a lot of people that consider it the ultimate sign of affection and should only be done with those you wish to spend the rest of your life with. A symbol that you care for them enough you want to have a family with them. After all, creating offspring is the entire reason it exists.

"Waiting till marriage" is in essence an insult to people who take the idea of marriage seriously.
I don't know where you get this from either. It's the exact opposite. The idea of waiting until marriage is only meant for those who take marriage seriously. (A note to save my ass from flames real quick: Taking marriage seriously doesn't waiting until married for sex, but waiting until married does require taking marriage seriously.) The idea is pretty simple and straightforward. You are so serious about marriage and about spending your life with this person that you're willing to give them 'all of you'.

This goes hand-in-hand with the idea of an even deeper emotional bond and attatchment being created through the act of sex. Those who don't feel that bond simply wont grasp why others feel this way. It's like asking a blind person why they don't think the Mona Lisa is a beauitful painting. And trying to properly explain it is like trying to explain what blue looks like to someone who's been blind their entire life.

Now, I'm not one of those who thinks everyone should wait. Waiting isn't for everyone becuase sex doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. And beyond that I don't think waiting until marriage itself is necassary either. I do think longer than five or six months is usually a good idea and that it should be saved only for people you truly love, not just any random strange simply so you can feel good for a few minutes.

So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?
The way I would understand it, it's simply the understanding that the desire to fuck like rabbits has consequences when followed through, and as such, you should be in a position where you understand and accept the consequences before you act on what the emotion tells you.

The marriage argument is something like "the consequences of sex are more acceptable to someone who has made a long-term commitment and best dealt with in a committed relationship". I don't really buy the argument that sex must be postponed until marriage, but I do think that sleeping around suggests a level of irresponsibility (assuming it's between fertile heterosexuals or there's some non-zero chance of STD infection).

Well, to a lot of people sex is a pretty meaningful part of their relationship; even so, there's always an "emotional responsibility" to make sure both partners are sure they want to have sex and to understand whether or not there's any baggage along with it that might have consequences down the line. I mean, if one person views sex as a casual act and another as something significant, that might be pretty goddamn hurtful when the partner finds out that they were simply a one-night stand and nothing more.

Well people like to throw any reason they can towards their ideals of not having sex before marriage, and most of it comes from the uber-religious who are fanatical enough to wait and wait

Those of us who are normal, understand that is part of human nature to want to experience things in life before we commit to anything in a long-term manner

However, there are several main points
- If those who have sex before marriage, by accident or choice cause pregnancy outside of marriage, then there is the responsibility to either get married and support the family code, or in modern ideals, arrange an abortion - yet sadly, there are too many scumbag men who cause pregnancies then 'disappear'
- Sadly, there are a number of people, who after having sex, consider the act of sex to somehow mean total commitment, even if the partner considers the relationship to be casual, and these individuals can/ usually get highly violent if the 'casual' partner tries to leave them or see other people
-

oh come on.

as an adult you DO have some responsibilities when it comes to sex. its not just a pleasurable exchange.

you have the responsibility to not be leading the other person to believe that you feel a connection that you dont feel. to not manipulate the other person into "giving" you sex by pretending that you are in love and see a future together.

kinda like (and i watch too many tv court shows) you dont pretend to be in love with the girl who just got an inheritance from her grandmother so that you can "borrow" a bunch of money from her.

you have a responsibility to not take advantage of the too young or too vulnerable. you have a responsibilty to YOURSELF to not have sex with psychos.

you have a responsibility to not knowinginly pass infections on to other people and to deal with it if you do. you have a responsibility to deal with any accidental pregnancy that might result.

you have a responsibilty to protect the reputation of anyone you have sex with by not spreading that news around (if you are in the kind of crowd that holds promiscuity against you)

The only thing i can think of is be honest with your intentions.
Don't tell/lead a girl to believe you want a relationship when all you want is the occasional fuck buddy. Don't throw the L word around to get laid. don't kiss and tell. stuff like that.

Emotionally responsibility isn't created by sex, it is required to have healthy sex and make rational decisions. Decisions like whether or not to use a condom, for example, or being ready to take care of any children that result from the sex.

Youre confusing "responsibility" with "emotional responsibility". No one has denyed there are responsibilities.



Sex has very much to do with relationships.

Doesnt have to, however. If I fuck some hot girl I meet at a party, and neither of us see each other after that night...

No, but maybe you have a responsibility not to get some girl pregnant and then abuse her and the child because you're angry that it didn't turn out to be the one night stand you'd planned on. For example.

Youre confusing "responsibility" with "emotional responsibility". No one has denyed there are responsibilities.

oh come on.

as an adult you DO have some responsibilities when it comes to sex. its not just a pleasurable exchange.

you have the responsibility to not be leading the other person to believe that you feel a connection that you dont feel. to not manipulate the other person into "giving" you sex by pretending that you are in love and see a future together.

kinda like (and i watch too many tv court shows) you dont pretend to be in love with the girl who just got an inheritance from her grandmother so that you can "borrow" a bunch of money from her.

you have a responsibility to not take advantage of the too young or too vulnerable. you have a responsibilty to YOURSELF to not have sex with psychos.

you have a responsibility to not knowinginly pass infections on to other people and to deal with it if you do. you have a responsibility to deal with any accidental pregnancy that might result.

you have a responsibilty to protect the reputation of anyone you have sex with by not spreading that news around (if you are in the kind of crowd that holds promiscuity against you)



I wouldnt call any of these an "emotional" responsibility. Id call them being a decent person.

I just want to know what people mean when they say "I wasnt/am not ready for the emotional responsibility".

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

Regardless of how much actual emotion SHOULD be vested in any particular sex act, as humans we do invest a lot of emotion into it. We're intimate, social creatures, and we can have a lot of impact on friendships, relationships, and so on through sex.

So the responsibility comes from measuring the impact of what having sex with someone might mean. If, for example, you mean for it to be an act of love, your partner needs to know that. If you mean it to simply be boinking for the sake of boinking, your partner also needs to be aware and understand this.

That's what the responsibility is: understanding the impact your sex acts with others can have on others.

To me, sex is a boon of a relationship. It should only be done with someone you love. I'm not a supporter of one night stands.

I wouldnt call any of these an "emotional" responsibility. Id call them being a decent person.

I just want to know what people mean when they say "I wasnt/am not ready for the emotional responsibility".
i suppose

not that i have a clue as to what they mean if they dont mean "dont manipulate the weak into sex by lying to them about how you feel"

and not that i agree with the idea that you should wait for marriage to have sex. thats just stupid.

I just want to know what people mean when they say "I wasnt/am not ready for the emotional responsibility".

Basically? They don't want to risk the emotional attachments they see to sex.

You have to remember that everyone views the sex act in a different way. You might not view it as automatically having a lot of emotional connotations, but other people do, and because they do, they feel more about the sex act, and as such, possess more emotional responsibility for themselves.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

Okay I'll have a chew on this one.

Do you think that it is possible to have sex with somebody who you have no feelings for, and yet still enjoy it?

Okay I'll have a chew on this one.

Do you think that it is possible to have sex with somebody who you have no feelings for, and yet still enjoy it?

I know its possible. I had great sex with women who the only connection I had with them was they were hot.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

To me it’s actually being able to overcome the social pressure to feel a certain way about having sex with someone. There is enormous pressure to have sex only with people you love (principles rooted not in traditional relationships or beliefs in monogamy so much as in fear of STIs and pregnancy now). There is also pressure on women to not have sex, because having sex with too many people makes you a slut…so in terms of females, the emotional responsibility is more like the emotional ability to not feel ashamed. For men, there is still pressure to get laid often, and avoid emotional attachments. Emotional responsibility here would be in not treating a sexual partner like shit, or acting like she’s a slut. The entire issue of ‘emotional responsibility’, to me, is the ability to not let social pressures and social stereotypes to interfere with what is, at it’s core, a natural human activity.

The responsibility is honesty. To yourself, and to your partner.

I know its possible. I had great sex with women who the only connection I had with them was they were hot.

And do you still think of her with foundness, or do you feel nothing?

And do you still think of her with foundness, or do you feel nothing?

I think fondly of that night and her body, but there is no attatchment. If I saw one of them again, Id feel nothing out of the ordinary.

Perhaps Emotional Responsiblitiy is more about aknowledging the other person is now a part of their lives. sure for most people, casual fucking is just that. a one night stand.

However, for some, an emotional bonding does occur (whether or not both partners experience that bond is another thing) and that partner becomes apart of that person's life.

Hence some people turn 'clingy' or 'needy' after sex.

I just want to know what people mean when they say "I wasnt/am not ready for the emotional responsibility".
:confused: never heard that one.

it could be that...

1) a bad relationship in that person's past is still haunting them (and it can be a relationship that person observed... say their parents)
2) that person reconizes that emotionally, they're not ready for a relationship at 'that level'.
3) it's just an excuse to not have sex with you.

Whatever the reason, if the person doesn't want sex until they are married, who are we to say otherwise?

I think fondly of that night and her body, but there is no attatchment. If I saw one of them again, Id feel nothing out of the ordinary.

You see you contradict your self there. How can you think fondly of her body yet have no attachment?

Is fondness not an emotional feeling?

I think that getting married without first having had sex with your husband/bride-to-be is irresponsible.

Sexuality is a very important characteristic of a marriage. Marrying someone whom you might be completely incompatible with sexually means you have every chance of seeing that marriage break down further down the line.

Sex is a major issue in many, many divorces. If the conjugal sex life is dead, the marriage most often follows.

Now, I'm all for saying "don't just fuck around mindlessly with every stranger you pick up on the street", especially in a "wait till you're in love and in a relationship, you'll find the sex a lot more rewarding, healthy, and fulfilling that way". Still, some people like to fuck around anyway, and they're quite welcome to it as long as they grab partners with the same intentions (and don't delude people who might be looking for more).

But yeah, getting married to someone you never had sex with? Kinda like diving head first in a shallow river filled with pointy rocks. You might get lucky and have everything go fine and dandy, but you're better off testing the waters the old fashioned way and finding a deep end before you dive, in my not-so-humble opinion.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

An evolutionary holdover from the days when being pregnant and not having a husband probably meant being dead.

You see you contradict your self there. How can you think fondly of her body yet have no attachment?

Is fondness not an emotional feeling?

Oh please, I can think of something in a pleasent and approving manner without having an attatchment.


And the key point is, this is if I even think about it. Which after a while, I stopped. And m engaged now, so I think about them even less.

This raises a good issue

It is an odd prejudice, that any guy who goes around humping any girl that he can get his hands on makes him a STUD, but any girl who goes around humping any guy she can get is a SLUT

Much as I personally dont agree with one-night stands, Im sure alot of guys out there could relate to this picture:

http://archive.leasticoulddo.com/strips/20030210.gif

This raises a good issue

It is an odd prejudice, that any guy who goes around humping any girl that he can get his hands on makes him a STUD, but any girl who goes around humping any guy she can get is a SLUT
Hate those double standards.


BTW... I don't relate to that strip! ;)

Oh please, I can think of something in a pleasent and approving manner without having an attatchment.


And the key point is, this is if I even think about it. Which after a while, I stopped. And m engaged now, so I think about them even less.

Naaa you're not getting, me. Lets for get the word attachment.

Let concentrate instead on yoru words pleasent and approving.

It is clear that you remember your times with these woman with fondness, that you where pleased with the sex and that you approve of that time inyour life.

Are you now going to tell me that none of this can be said to be emotional?

Are you now going to tell me that none of this can be said to be emotional?


Yes. I am. It was fun. Nothing more. There is no attatchment to the person.

Do you feel an emotional attatchment to a roller coaster that you had a lot of fun on?

Yes. I am. It was fun. Nothing more. There is no attatchment to the person.

Do you feel an emotional attatchment to a roller coaster that you had a lot of fun on?

Two people, strangers. One, I have lunch with. One I fuck.

Why would I feel more attachment to the one I fucked, rather than the one I shared a really good meal with?

I agree with KoL on this.

Yes. I am. It was fun. Nothing more. There is no attatchment to the person.

Do you feel an emotional attatchment to a roller coaster that you had a lot of fun on?

Annnnd again, let just drop that word attachment.

So there is no emotion involved for you when ever you have sex?

As to the roller coaster, yes I feel emotion when I ride one, fear mostly but there is certianly emotion involved.

Two people, strangers. One, I have lunch with. One I fuck.

Why would I feel more attachment to the one I fucked, rather than the one I shared a really good meal with?

I agree with KoL on this.

I'm not talking about attachment. I'm trying to ascertian if there is emotion involved with having sex.

I'm not talking about attachment. I'm trying to ascertian if there is emotion involved with having sex.

Perhaps you should define emotion. There probably is pleasure involved for instance. The people answering you are however assuming you mean some other type.

Best to set things straight now, and use definitions of what you actually mean ;) ?

Youre confusing "responsibility" with "emotional responsibility". No one has denyed there are responsibilities.


Responsibilities like emotional ones. It takes maturity and responsibility, and thus emotional maturity and emotional responsibility. I think you're the one who's getting hung up on semantics.


Doesnt have to, however. If I fuck some hot girl I meet at a party, and neither of us see each other after that night...

...and she gives you AIDS, and you give her a baby boy...

Part of emotional responsibility is in accepting that "fucking a hot girl" isn't a risk-free, worry-free, no-responsibility-required thing.

I wouldnt call any of these an "emotional" responsibility. Id call them being a decent person.

Well, potato, potahto, I think.

I just want to know what people mean when they say "I wasnt/am not ready for the emotional responsibility".

Oh, that. Probably they are euphemistically saying that their last sex partner got romantically attracted to him/her and he/she didn't reciprocate the feelings and so terminating the fucking. That's just my guess though... context is usually required when waving broad, ambiguous terms about.

Two people, strangers. One, I have lunch with. One I fuck.

Why would I feel more attachment to the one I fucked, rather than the one I shared a really good meal with?

I agree with KoL on this.

Of course you do. I am a genius;)



So there is no emotion involved for you when ever you have sex?


Other than a feeling of enjoyment (or lack there of), no, I dont.

I can enjoy the act without having an emotional feeling for the person.

Perhaps you should define emotion. There probably is pleasure involved for instance. The people answering you are however assuming you mean some other type.

Best to set things straight now, and use definitions of what you actually mean ;) ?

Ahhh well I gota go home now, got dinner to cook, kids and wife to feed, beer to drink, and crads to play.

I'll leave ya with this though the OP is asking what 'emotional responsiblity' is there with sex.

Riding on fairground attration certianly give me an emotional response, however the ride feels nowt about me.

Having sex does create a bond(however weak) and there are lots of people out there that invest great emotion, AND great attachment to those they have sex with.

Emotional Responsibilty, well I would say that this is more about the other persons emotional well being. You could have sex and feel nowt for the girl, I know I have done so in my youth, but you know there is one girl in particular who I used just for the sex and then got shoot of her.

Even now, I feel the guilt about mistreating her, this maybe because I shirked my responsibility to ensure that we both felt the same way before engaging in the act, maybe not, you tell me huh.

Having sex does create a bond(however weak) and there are lots of people out there that invest great emotion, AND great attachment to those they have sex with.


It creates a bond in the same way any other social activity does. Nothing special about it.

Two people, strangers. One, I have lunch with. One I fuck.

Why would I feel more attachment to the one I fucked, rather than the one I shared a really good meal with?

I agree with KoL on this.

ah, but what if the one you fuck gives you great orgasms...

while the other one just buys you your soup and sandwich...

:p

It creates a bond in the same way any other social activity does. Nothing special about it.

It seems like you just want to pretend that having sex is no different from sharing a meal, and that there is no emotional involvement nor need for it, and that there are really almost no risks.

Now don't be offended, but are you a teenage male?

It seems like you just want to pretend that having sex is no different from sharing a meal, and that there is no emotional involvement nor need for it,

There is no emotional involvement needed for it.

and that there are really almost no risks.

Strawman. No one is making this about risks but you.

Now don't be offended, but are you a teenage male?

No. Done stereotyping?

It creates a bond in the same way any other social activity does. Nothing special about it.

so why is forcing someone to eat not treated the same as forcing someone to have sex?

is the emotional damage of being forced to eat the same as being forced to have sex?

so why is forcing someone to eat not treated the same as forcing someone to have sex?

is the emotional damage of being forced to eat the same as being forced to have sex?

Potentially, but most likely not. For the aneroxics in eating disorder clinics who are force fed, it might be comperable, but to the vast majority it is not.

But, the vast majority doesnt feel the same way I do.

I never said there cant be emotional attatchment in sex. I said it isnt needed and it isnt inherant.

There is no emotional involvement needed for it.


No, just needed for healthy and normal sexual relations as I'm pretty sure I said in an earlier post you ignored.

Strawman. No one is making this about risks but you.

Emotional responsibility, like any kind of responsibility, includes the ability to assess risks.

No. Done stereotyping?

So then why are you arguing in favor of irresponsibility and emotionlessness concerning sex?

Potentially, but most likely not. For the aneroxics in eating disorder clinics who are force fed, it might be comperable, but to the vast majority it is not.

But, the vast majority doesnt feel the same way I do.

I never said there cant be emotional attatchment in sex. I said it isnt needed and it isnt inherant.

well, I was talking more about the Mommilie "you're not leaving that table until you finish your plate" :p

and Aneroxics are killing themselves a totally different way. :(

however...

there is emotional Attachment in sex. some can choose to ignore it, others can't. perhaps this "emotional responsibility" with sex is the aknowledgement of such an attachment and their willingness to 'deal with it'.

(Of course, dealing with it can take on many forms.)

No, just needed for healthy and normal sexual relations as I'm pretty sure I said in an earlier post you ignored.

One night stands are pretty normal and arent inherantly unhealthy. Unless you have some study that shows that having one night stands somehow causes psychological damage?



Emotional responsibility, like any kind of responsibility, includes the ability to assess risks.

Emotional responsibility is not maturity and clear thinking. And the risk of pregnency and STDs are not emotional risks, they are biological ones.


So then why are you arguing in favor of irresponsibility and emotionlessness concerning sex?

I never argued in favor of irresponsibility. I said there is no inherant emotional responsibility.

And I see nothing wrong with emotionless sex, provided you and your partner both know it is just that. I have never advocated taking advantage of someone.

Are you done fighting strawmen?

there is emotional Attachment in sex.

For you. You are not everyone ;)

there is emotional Attachment in sex. some can choose to ignore it, others can't. perhaps this "emotional responsibility" with sex is the aknowledgement of such an attachment and their willingness to 'deal with it'.



There are only emotional attatchments if you create them.

I never said there cant be emotional attatchment in sex. I said it isnt needed and it isnt inherant.

This.

Some people fuck without a second thought. Deal with it, NSG. Just because something is good for you doesn't mean it's good for everyone.

As long as nobody is getting metaphorically shafted in the deal, it's all fine. Those who want just sex without emotional attachment get the sex without the emotional attachment. Those who want to get to know each other better before sex can take their time. Those who want to tempt fate and marry someone before they even boink for the first time can.

And each of these categories engage in these behaviors at their risk and peril, because each of these has risks of differing natures attached to them.

This.

Some people fuck without a second thought. Deal with it, NSG. Just because something is good for you doesn't mean it's good for everyone.

As long as nobody is getting metaphorically shafted in the deal, it's all fine. Those who want just sex without emotional attachment get the sex without the emotional attachment. Those who want to get to know each other better before sex can take their time. Those who want to tempt fate and marry someone before they even boink for the first time can.

And each of these categories engage in these behaviors at their risk and peril, because each of these has risks of differing natures attached to them.
Thank you. I dont understand why it keeps some people up at night that some people have sex just because it feels good and is fun, and dont have to feel anything but a physical attraction towards the person.

I guess the same reasons people are kept up at night over gays being together.

For you. You are not everyone ;)

There are only emotional attatchments if you create them.

ah, now if you read my post, I did mention 'dealing with it'.

so TAM is choosing to ignore it while KoL is choosing to disreguard it. as many people here says they do.

that is "dealing with it." ;)

going back to your OP about Emotional Responsiblility, maybe that person can't just ignore that attachment. thus he views himself as unable to cope with the Emotional Responsibility.

ah, now if you read my post, I did mention 'dealing with it'.

so TAM is choosing to ignore it while KoL is choosing to disreguard it. as many people here says they do.

that is "dealing with it." ;)


No, its not. We're saying it doesnt exist for everyone.

A rebuttle of "Its there even if you dont know it or ignore it!" is not convincing.

Thank you. I dont understand why it keeps some people up at night that some people have sex just because it feels good and is fun, and dont have to feel anything but a physical attraction towards the person.

I guess the same reasons people are kept up at night over gays being together.

yet you posted a thread because some people reconize that sex to them is more than just a one time thing.

you target those people like 'others target gays being together.'

you critisize them even tho they are living the way they choose to live like those others who critisize how gays choose to live.

Pot, meet kettle. :D

so TAM is choosing to ignore it while KoL is choosing to disreguard it. as many people here says they do..

And you are arrogantly assuming it exists in every human in the first place, refusing to consider you may be wrong.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

The responsibility is that while it may not mean anything to you, it may mean a hell of a lot to who you're fucking, so you've got to be careful.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.

My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.

So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

More emotionally dead than DK? Survey says......































Yes!

yet you posted a thread because some people reconize that sex to them is more than just a one time thing.

you target those people like 'others target gays being together.'

you critisize them even tho they are living the way they choose to live like those others who critisize how gays choose to live.

Pot, meet kettle. :D

You know, my least favorite thing about NSG is how often words are put into my mouth.


I dont give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people. What I do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex.

So no, not "pot, meet keetle"

And you are arrogantly assuming it exists in every human in the first place, refusing to consider you may be wrong.
not I, read the exchange between KoL and I carefully.

I never said there cant be emotional attatchment in sex. I said it isnt needed and it isnt inherant.

Even KoL admits the possiblity that an emotional attachment can exist.

no one is assuming it exsists nor doesn't in everyone. just that some believe it does for them.

it's your arrogance that assumes that I am talking about every human. It's your arrogance that assumes that your attitude towards sex should be everyone's attitude towards sex.

not I, read the exchange between KoL and I carefully.



Even KoL admits the possiblity that an emotional attachment can exist.


Yes....but Im not saying it always does, like some people here ARE saying and like you did say.

No one is saying you cant develop an emotional attatchment afte sex. What we are saying is it only happens if you choose for it to.

no one is assuming it exsists nor doesn't in everyone. just that some believe it does for them.

it's your arrogance that assumes that I am talking about every human. It's your arrogance that assumes that your attitude towards sex should be everyone's attitude towards sex.

But, you did imply you were talking about everyone:

there is emotional Attachment in sex.

Your inability to get your point across does not translate into arrogance on our part.

You know, my least favorite thing about NSG is how often words are put into my mouth.

I dont give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people. What I do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex.

So no, not "pot, meet keetle"

yet you posted
People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage. you don't say Some people, but People as if it's the norm.

My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.

So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?here you're asking about Emotional Responsiblity and you give your opinion. others give theirs and yet you argue against them as if it's wrong for them to have their opinion.

so yes, you obviously give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people and you do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex because you created a thread about it.

yet you posted
you don't say Some people, but People as if it's the norm.


Eh Gods. Everyone seemed to have understood the implied "some".

here you're asking about Emotional Responsiblity and you give your opinion. others give theirs and yet you argue against them as if it's wrong for them to have their opinion.


Because their opinion that emotional attatchment is required for sex is wrong.

so yes, you obviously give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people

No, I dont. You enjoy arguing with phantoms?

and you do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex because you created a thread about it.

This I do care about, and I never denyed it.

it's your arrogance that assumes that I am talking about every human.

Fine. You mentioned me by initials. What mysterious power has told you that I am "ignoring an emotional attachment" ?

It's your arrogance that assumes that your attitude towards sex should be everyone's attitude towards sex.

Please point to where I said that. Would be quite intruiging to see, since I am the one arguing that people are different.

Yes....but Im not saying it always does, like some people here ARE saying and like you did say.

No one is saying you cant develop an emotional attatchment afte sex. What we are saying is it only happens if you choose for it to. ah, but for some people, they can't choose not to have that emotional attachment. not everyone is the same emotionally.

But, you did imply you were talking about everyone:you not creating any emotional attachment is your way of 'dealing with it.' by not creating it, you are aknowledging that people make the choice not to become attached. the potential is there, just not taken.

Your inability to get your point across does not translate into arrogance on our part. back at ya since I was not the first to bring up arrogance.

yet you posted
you don't say Some people, but People as if it's the norm.

here you're asking about Emotional Responsiblity and you give your opinion. others give theirs and yet you argue against them as if it's wrong for them to have their opinion.

so yes, you obviously give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people and you do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex because you created a thread about it.
You seem to be the only one here reading those things in his posts.

I know I didn't.

you not creating any emotional attachment is your way of 'dealing with it.' by not creating it, you are aknowledging that people make the choice not to become attached. the potential is there, just not taken.

Wait. So, is there or is there not always an emotional attatchment. Now youre just going back and forth.

back at ya since I was not the first to bring up arrogance.

Thing is, everyone but you seems to be able to understand my point without burning strawmen.

You seem to be the only one here reading those things in his posts.

I know I didn't.

Seriously, I know I can be unclear sometimes, but when everyone gets it but one person, Im not going to assume its me with the problem...

Fine. You mentioned me by initials. What mysterious power has told you that I am "ignoring an emotional attachment" ? bad choice of words on my part. but my use of "ignoring" it isn't meant to be in a negative way, just an example of emotional control. some can choose to ignore feelings of infatuation, while others can't. that's all I'm saying.

Seriously, I know I can be unclear sometimes, but when everyone gets it but one person, Im not going to assume its me with the problem...

it sounds like in your OP that you have zero emotional attachment where sex is concerned, and you don't understand how anyone else can have emotional attachment where sex is concerned.

Is that a correct statement?

it sounds like in your OP that you have zero emotional attachment where sex is concerned, and you don't understand how anyone else can have emotional attachment where sex is concerned.

Is that a correct statement?

No, I do have it sometimes, and I understand how some people will.


My whole point is emotional attatchments are not required or inherant.


But thank you for asking for a clarification before firing away at ghost arguements.

No, I do have it sometimes, and I understand how some people will.

My whole point is emotional attatchments are not required or inherant.

But thank you for asking for a clarification before firing away at ghost arguements.

On your second statement, what if someone you're with thinks they're required, and you don't at that moment. Are you going to ask for a clarification before saying, "hey, thanks for the fuck, but I gotta be going now..."?

Wait. So, is there or is there not always an emotional attatchment. Now youre just going back and forth.emotional attachment? yes, it always happens. the strength and degree varies from person to person. as is that person's way of dealing with it.

some can ignore it. some can prevent it from occuring (hence the word 'potential') and others can't.

Thing is, everyone but you seems to be able to understand my point without burning strawmen.
like rollercosters? :p

thing is,my first post in this thread stated my posistion on the matter,
Perhaps Emotional Responsiblitiy is more about aknowledging the other person is now a part of their lives. sure for most people, casual fucking is just that. a one night stand.

However, for some, an emotional bonding does occur (whether or not both partners experience that bond is another thing) and that partner becomes apart of that person's life.

Hence some people turn 'clingy' or 'needy' after sex.

[snipped quote]

:confused: never heard that one.

it could be that...

1) a bad relationship in that person's past is still haunting them (and it can be a relationship that person observed... say their parents)
2) that person reconizes that emotionally, they're not ready for a relationship at 'that level'.
3) it's just an excuse to not have sex with you.

Whatever the reason, if the person doesn't want sex until they are married, who are we to say otherwise?

emotional attachment? yes, it always happens.
Except that no, it does not.

Maybe for you it does.

I know I can't have good sex without it. But I've had sex without any shreds of emotional attachment first. Having sex didn't cause the emotional attachment to magically appear out of thin air. For me it was a pretty unfulfilling experience, but I know some people manage to enjoy and have a lot of fun without it.

You're confusing two issues here.

so why is forcing someone to eat not treated the same as forcing someone to have sex?

is the emotional damage of being forced to eat the same as being forced to have sex?


Forced feeding is often a method used to prevent fanatics from hunger strikes, and thus helps them LIVE, however forced sex points alot of people towards suicide and thus they DIE

simple really

though, forced sex is a bad thing,
yet the forced feeding issue most often only arises among Hippies, Religious nuts, and Refugees that get upset at being kept in detention (like those 'boat people' that Australia picked up off the sinking ship called Tampa, where Oz kept them in camps and they starved themselves in protest at Oz not just welcoming them in) in these cases, why force feed them, if Hippies, Zealots and Refugees want to starve, let them, it will just help natural selection claim them

Are you going to ask for a clarification before saying, "hey, thanks for the fuck, but I gotta be going now..."?


Isnt that called "Wham, Bam, Thank you Ma'am" ?
:D

Except that no, it does not.

Maybe for you it does.

I know I can't have good sex without it. But I've had sex without any shreds of emotional attachment first. Having sex didn't cause the emotional attachment to magically appear out of thin air. For me it was a pretty unfulfilling experience, but I know some people manage to enjoy and have a lot of fun without it.

You're confusing two issues here.

did you read the part you snipped out? that degree of intesity varies as well as each person's ability and method of dealing with it?

did you read the part you snipped out? that degree of intesity varies as well as each person's ability and method of dealing with it?

Yes, I read your post. "Nothing" does not vary in degrees of intensity.

I have had sex without emotional bond/attachment before. Others have had sex without any emotional bond/attachment before. The absence of a bond means there is nothing to deal with.

One can argue that it might be preferable to have emotional attachment before sex, and I would partially agree with it, as least as far as I myself am concerned. But to argue that "Hey, it's still there, you just don't know it/ignore it/deal with it differently" is both dishonest and wrong. This is how you might feel towards sex. But there are (at least) two of us here giving you direct testimony that while this might be true for you, it's not true for US, and therefore cannot be generalized in a universal truth, because you know, it's not true for us and hence cannot be universal.

Trying to apply your own feelings or opinions on someone else is called projection. And it seems to me like it's what's happening here.

Also, telling someone else what s/he is feeling or thinking as if you knew it better than them is an extremely stupid and rude thing to do. So please stop doing it. Thanks.

Also, telling someone else what s/he is feeling or thinking as if you knew it better than them is an extremely stupid and rude thing to do. So please stop doing it. Thanks.

just like you are doing?

after all, you admitted that you don't aknowledge any attachment. that doesn't mean it's not there, just that you don't let it rule your thoughts.

On your second statement, what if someone you're with thinks they're required, and you don't at that moment. Are you going to ask for a clarification before saying, "hey, thanks for the fuck, but I gotta be going now..."?

I would hope it was clarified before the sex started.

just like you are doing?

after all, you admitted that you don't aknowledge any attachment. that doesn't mean it's not there, just that you don't let it rule your thoughts.

Except, hes not. Hes saying "People can have sex without emotional attatchments."

Your saying "Nu-uh no they cant!"

One person is telling someone how the feel. The other isnt. Its not hard.

just like you are doing?

after all, you admitted that you don't aknowledge any attachment. that doesn't mean it's not there, just that you don't let it rule your thoughts.
I admitted that I've had sex without any attachment before. Not that I had some attachment but didn't acknowledge it.

Do you have a reading disorder, or are you purposefully trying to tell me how I feel despite me kindly asking you to stop doing it?

Seriously, I believe that I am the best person qualified to analyse, dissect, interpret and ultimately draw conclusions from my own feelings, and if you disagree you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I chose to disregard it, fuck you very much for sharing.

One night stands are pretty normal and arent inherantly unhealthy. Unless you have some study that shows that having one night stands somehow causes psychological damage?

I don't need a study to show that sex - any sex - is a risk. I've already mentioned pregnancy and sexual diseases. Taking these risks just for casual, supposedly emotionless (yeah, no emotions whatsoever. You're either a Vulcan or a sociopath I guess!) flings is irresponsible and stupid.

Emotional responsibility is not maturity and clear thinking.

Yes, it involves both.

And the risk of pregnency and STDs are not emotional risks, they are biological ones.

They are emotional ones too. I know you're an emotionless Vulcan and all that, but pregnancy sure as shit is emotional for others.

I never argued in favor of irresponsibility. I said there is no inherant emotional responsibility.

Fine. There is no *inherent* responsibility. But you know, that goes for any and all types of responsibility. It's not *inherent* to anything. So what? What's your point? It's not needed? It's mythical? You aren't making your case very well if so.

I don't need a study to show that sex - any sex - is a risk. I've already mentioned pregnancy and sexual diseases. Taking these risks just for casual, supposedly emotionless (yeah, no emotions whatsoever. You're either a Vulcan or a sociopath I guess!) flings is irresponsible and stupid.

...the fuck?

No. Having an emotionless fling is not irresponsible and stupid. Take proper precautions. There, you were responsible.

Your opinion is not fact.

Fine. There is no *inherent* responsibility. But you know, that goes for any and all types of responsibility. It's not *inherent* to anything. So what? What's your point? It's not needed? It's mythical? You aren't making your case very well if so.

Its not needed. Ive been pretty clear. You can have sex without having emotional feeling for the person.

I don't need a study to show that sex - any sex - is a risk.
So is breathing, eating, and generally being alive.


I've already mentioned pregnancy and sexual diseases. Taking these risks just for casual, supposedly emotionless (yeah, no emotions whatsoever. You're either a Vulcan or a sociopath I guess!) flings is irresponsible and stupid.

So extreme sports, parachuting, bungee jumping and the like are all irresponsible and stupid.

Good for you, don't do them. And now stop moralizing to others that they shouldn't drive their car because it's risky and you could get an accident, or telling people that they really shouldn't do X or Y due to risk Z.

People are old enough to do proper risk assessment and take proper precautions to avoid said risks while still engaging in the activities they like. If a guy goes parachuting accompanied by a professional instructor, if a gal gets car insurance and drives carefully while respecting the road legislation, and if someone wants to have casual sex while using a condom and choosing their partners according to their shared desire to enjoy casual sex without ties, then they can. And they won't be taking any undue, stupid or irresponsible risks as long as they're smart about it and take said precautions.

So is breathing, eating, and generally being alive.


So extreme sports, parachuting, bungee jumping and the like are all irresponsible and stupid.

Good for you, don't do them. And now stop moralizing to others that they shouldn't drive their car because it's risky and you could get an accident, or telling people that they really shouldn't do X or Y due to risk Z.

People are old enough to do proper risk assessment and take proper precautions to avoid said risks while still engaging in the activities they like. If a guy goes parachuting accompanied by a professional instructor, if a gal gets car insurance and drives carefully while respecting the road legislation, and if someone wants to have casual sex while using a condom and choosing their partners according to their shared desire to enjoy casual sex without ties, then they can. And they won't be taking any undue, stupid or irresponsible risks as long as they're smart about it and take said precautions.

Psh, your just a sociopath and irresponsible.

I would hope it was clarified before the sex started.



Except, hes not. Hes saying "People can have sex without emotional attatchments."

Your saying "Nu-uh no they cant!"

One person is telling someone how the feel. The other isnt. Its not hard.
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relational_maintenance/public/romantic_attachments.html

Not only are humans designed to form a deep emotional bond to a sexual partner, but the process by which we do so is very similar to how infants form a bond to their primary caregivers.

...

The lesson to be learned? Be careful about whom you have repeated intimate contact with – you are likely to form an attachment to that person. And once an attachment is formed, it can be very difficult to break.


http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070315_sex_sleep.html
It’s also possible that sleepiness is just a “side effect” associated with a more evolutionarily important reason for the release of oxytocin and vasopressin. In addition to being associated with sleep, both chemicals are also intimately involved in what is called “pair bonding,” the social attachment human mates commonly share. The release of these brain chemicals during orgasm heightens feelings of bonding and trust between sexual partners, which may partially explain the link between sex and emotional attachment. This bond is favorable should the couple have a baby, as cooperative child rearing maximizes the young one’s chances for survival.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relational_maintenance/public/romantic_attachments.html




http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070315_sex_sleep.html

Your counter arguement is a link to what is essentially a romantic advice column?


Again, its someone telling me ow I feel.

I'm not talking about attachment. I'm trying to ascertian if there is emotion involved with having sex.

For sure, but depending on the person, it's the same sort of emotion I feel when I eat a really delicious, rare steak. Pleasure, joy, general happiness. When I get to share that with someone, over a meal, or in the sack, it's great...doesn't mean I inherently care more for one person than the other.

Psh, your just a sociopath and irresponsible.

Except that, you know, I've had casual sex twice in my life before swearing it off forever, never went parachuting, and doesn't own a car nor a license. Also, I hate extreme sports because I don't want to break a limb doing them.

And yet, why is it -me- of all people who needs to explain the facts of life to people who don't want to admit the simple fact that "hey, some people just like to fuck!"?

I won't lie, I'm a strong proponent of "Don't do it unless you're in love and in a relationship" type of person. But I'm realistic enough to admit that some people enjoy casual sex just for what it is, that they can live a perfectly healthy life engaging in it, and that if they take proper precautions and find partners who are looking for the same they're not being irresponsible about it and we shouldn't be trying to be moralizing twats to them.

Because what works for me and makes me happy might just -not- be what makes the neighbor happy.

Why people like Junii and Ssek are in denial about this, I don't know.

ah, but what if the one you fuck gives you great orgasms...

while the other one just buys you your soup and sandwich...

:p
I'll compare good sex to a good steak, and bad sex to a sandwich. The first two, I'd be quite happy with...the second pair wouldn't have a second chance :P

You know, my least favorite thing about NSG is how often words are put into my mouth.


I dont give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people. What I do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex.

So no, not "pot, meet keetle"
AGREED.

I am head over heels in love with GoG and was before I had sex with him.

I've had one night stands, seen the person later, and felt absolutely no different about them than I did before I slept with them.

The emotional bonds I form with people are not dependent on sex.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand? If it's different for you, great...but frankly, the fact that KoL and I exist disproves that notion that there is something inherent in sex that magically creates some sort of emotional bond with the person you've fucked.

I am head over heels in love with GoG and was before I had sex with him.

I didnt know you were literally in love with and fucking Gift of God.

I didnt know you were literally in love with and fucking Gift of God.

Well I am not, unfortunately, in flagrante delicto with him at the moment, but yes to both points. Learn something new every day, hmmm?

Well I am not, unfortunately, in flagrante delicto with him at the moment, but yes to both points. Learn something new every day, hmmm?

Indeed. Well, congrats, Im happy for you.


And now back to your regularly schedualed bickering

So is breathing, eating, and generally being alive.

Yes, but if you're irresponsible when you eat, you put on a few pounds.

When you're irresponsible when you have sex, you can fuck up the life of your sex partner, and possibly that of a child.

Are you people really trying to convince me that sex is not at all different from eating? I

So extreme sports, parachuting, bungee jumping and the like are all irresponsible and stupid.

See above.

Good for you, don't do them. And now stop moralizing to others that they shouldn't drive their car because it's risky and you could get an accident, or telling people that they really shouldn't do X or Y due to risk Z.

I will say what I want to say, thanks.

And I'm not "moralizing to others." I am answering apparent questions the poster apparently had. It's called discussion. If you don't like it, tough, but I am going to say my mind.

People are old enough to do proper risk assessment and take proper precautions to avoid said risks while still engaging in the activities they like.

That must be why teen pregnancy is not a problem!

If a guy goes parachuting accompanied by a professional instructor, if a gal gets car insurance and drives carefully while respecting the road legislation, and if someone wants to have casual sex while using a condom and choosing their partners according to their shared desire to enjoy casual sex without ties, then they can. And they won't be taking any undue, stupid or irresponsible risks as long as they're smart about it and take said precautions.

You may as well have just said "And they won't be irresponsible, as long as they are responsible!"

That must be why teen pregnancy is not a problem!



Because of improper sex education?

...the fuck?

No. Having an emotionless fling is not irresponsible and stupid. Take proper precautions. There, you were responsible.

Your opinion is not fact.


Your precautions failed. Now you have a child to raise. Are you prepared to do so? Emotional responsibility is needed for your response.


Its not needed. Ive been pretty clear. You can have sex without having emotional feeling for the person.

Alright, you're a robot. Congratulations! But the context of discussion was humans, and no matter how well you may delude yourself that you're an emotionless badass, you can't delude me into agreeing that you are.

Ssek, you're making a very poor argument.

Just because you have an 'emotional attachment' to someone does not mean you are necessarily going to engage in safe sex. Nor does not forming that attachment mean you're going to engage in risky sex.

It is fine to form emotional attachments to sexual partners. No one is saying otherwise. What you seem unable to do is see the flip side of things...where there is truly nothing inherently wrong about NOT forming those emotional attachments.

Your choice to behave responsibly towards your sexual partners should never be predicated on whether you feel emotionally attached to them or not. You should be engaging in responsible sexual behaviour regardless.

Your precautions failed. Now you have a child to raise. Are you prepared to do so? Emotional responsibility is needed for your response.

Emotional Responsibility =/= Responsibility. An emotional responsibility is the feeling that one has some sort of mystic duty to care for someone emotionally just because you stuck in em.

Alright, you're a robot. Congratulations! But the context of discussion was humans, and no matter how well you may delude yourself that you're an emotionless badass, you can't delude me into agreeing that you are.

Wow, youre really something. Because we dont feel the same way, Im a robot or pretending to be an emotionless badass? Grow up kiddo. We're not clones. Some of us react to situations differently. I can have sex without emotion. Whether or not you believe me is of no consiquence. If you want to be arrogant enough to presume you know how I feel better than me be my guest, and I can just write you off as an arrogant prick and move on.

When you're irresponsible when you have sex, you can fuck up the life of your sex partner, and possibly that of a child.

Same can be said of driving a car. You can fuck up the life of someone and possibly that of a child. Or even several.



I will say what I want to say, thanks.

And I will keep saying that what you say is not a valid argument, thanks.


And I'm not "moralizing to others." I am answering apparent questions the poster apparently had. It's called discussion. If you don't like it, tough, but I am going to say my mind.

You manage to both answer questions and sound moralizing at the same time. I commend you for your impressive multi-tasking capabilities.



That must be why teen pregnancy is not a problem!

Here in Québec where we give proper sex education and provide far-and-wide condom and contraceptive pill availability it's not.



You may as well have just said "And they won't be irresponsible, as long as they are responsible!"
Yes. It's a wondrous thing, you know, taking precautions. It allows you to do something that, if you weren't careful about it, would be irresponsible. Only that if you're careful about it, suddenly it's not irresponsible.

I'm saying that potentially dangerous things are not dangerous if you're careful. Do you dispute the notion that protected casual sex among people who agree to it in good faith does not pose any significant risk, biological or emotional?

I´m not sure. I mean, I think I had only 2 one-night stands and with both men I was clear. This is just sex.
With my fiancé, well, that´s another thing. When we sleep together there is an emotional responsibility because there´s a deep love for one another involved.

I´m not sure. I mean, I think I had only 2 one-night stands and with both men I was clear. This is just sex.
With my fiancé, well, that´s another thing. When we sleep together there is an emotional responsibility because there´s a deep love for one another involved.

Yeah, thats what everyone but Sssh and Junii are saying. Theyre saying that in the one night stand cases, you were eiter lying or being immature and irresponsible.

Yeah, thats what everyone but Sssh and Junii are saying. Theyre saying that in the one night stand cases, you were eiter lying or being immature and irresponsible.

I would consider it irresponsible if I lied to these men and told them I loved them when that was untrue. I used them for sex and they used me for sex. No emotions involved. I find it mature that we were both true about our intentions.

Alright, you're a robot. Congratulations! But the context of discussion was humans, and no matter how well you may delude yourself that you're an emotionless badass, you can't delude me into agreeing that you are.

Why is it so hard to imagine that different people might have different emotional reactions to similar situations?


I'm saying that potentially dangerous things are not dangerous if you're careful. Do you dispute the notion that protected casual sex among people who agree to it in good faith does not pose any significant risk, biological or emotional?

In this case, I'd personally say usually not, but it depends on the person. It may be emotionally risky for those who find that they cannot have sex without forming emotional attachments, even though they truly wanted it to be casual.

I would consider it irresponsible if I lied to these men and told them I loved them when that was untrue. I used them for sex and they used me for sex. No emotions involved. I find it mature that we were both true about our intentions.

And most of us would agree with you.

I would consider it irresponsible if I lied to these men and told them I loved them when that was untrue. I used them for sex and they used me for sex. No emotions involved. I find it mature that we were both true about our intentions.

^This. This is the main thing. If there is an "emotional responsibility" inherent in all sex, it is that those involved need to be clear and honest with each other about it.

Your counter arguement is a link to what is essentially a romantic advice column?


Again, its someone telling me ow I feel.

hmm... yep, a "romantic Advice column" written by Scholars and people with PHD's in some form of the social Sciences.

also by a writer who not only has a phd in Molecular Biology and has written for such mags as Popular Science, Discover, and Scientific American. :rolleyes:

Yeah, thats what everyone but Sssh and Junii are saying. Theyre saying that in the one night stand cases, you were eiter lying or being immature and irresponsible.

your turn.

please show me where I called anyone immature, Irrisponsible or telling lies in the area of the 'one-night-stand'.

oh come on.

as an adult you DO have some responsibilities when it comes to sex. its not just a pleasurable exchange.

you have the responsibility to not be leading the other person to believe that you feel a connection that you dont feel. to not manipulate the other person into "giving" you sex by pretending that you are in love and see a future together.

kinda like (and i watch too many tv court shows) you dont pretend to be in love with the girl who just got an inheritance from her grandmother so that you can "borrow" a bunch of money from her.

you have a responsibility to not take advantage of the too young or too vulnerable. you have a responsibilty to YOURSELF to not have sex with psychos.

you have a responsibility to not knowinginly pass infections on to other people and to deal with it if you do. you have a responsibility to deal with any accidental pregnancy that might result.

you have a responsibilty to protect the reputation of anyone you have sex with by not spreading that news around (if you are in the kind of crowd that holds promiscuity against you)
Well stated.

I can have sex without emotion.
I believe that would be physically and mentally impossible for a human being.

My second thought on that is.....why even bother having sex if you feel nothing?

Well people like to throw any reason they can towards their ideals of not having sex before marriage, and most of it comes from the uber-religious who are fanatical enough to wait and wait

Those of us who are normal, understand that is part of human nature to want to experience things in life before we commit to anything in a long-term manner
The hell? I'm not "uber-religious" or "fanatical" and I stayed a virgin, by choice, until I was engaged.

However, there are several main points
- If those who have sex before marriage, by accident or choice cause pregnancy outside of marriage, then there is the responsibility to either get married and support the family code, or in modern ideals, arrange an abortion - yet sadly, there are too many scumbag men who cause pregnancies then 'disappear'
Those are two ends of an extreme. Sure, in older days you had 'shotgun weddings' resulting from pregnancy out of wedlock. But the modern ideal has never been 'get an abortion'. The guy does have a resonsibility, though. To the woman to help support the child and to the child to be there for them. That doesn't mean getting married, it just means owning up to new role as father, no matter how unplanned, unwanted, or undesired it may be.

- Sadly, there are a number of people, who after having sex, consider the act of sex to somehow mean total commitment, even if the partner considers the relationship to be casual, and these individuals can/ usually get highly violent if the 'casual' partner tries to leave them or see other people
I think you've got that wrong. That should read: "Sadly, there are a number of people who feel that having sex is no different than shaking hands and that since they see the whole thing as causual anyone else who doesn't has a screw loose and it's there problem, not mine."

For a lot of people, on an emotional level sex does mean that you are fully committed to the individual. It's a sign of just that. Your example only results when someone who's emotionally stunted and can't grasp this fact just sleeps with someone because they're hot, leads them to believe it's more than that, and then dumps them without a second thought afterwards.

I think that getting married without first having had sex with your husband/bride-to-be is irresponsible.

Sexuality is a very important characteristic of a marriage. Marrying someone whom you might be completely incompatible with sexually means you have every chance of seeing that marriage break down further down the line.
You don't have to have sex with the person to know if you're sexually compatible. My fiancee and I knew we were long before we had sex because we actually talked about it. We discussed, rather in detail, what liked and didn't like and wanted out of it and found that we meshed almost completely.

I think you've got that wrong. That should read: "Sadly, there are a number of people who feel that having sex is no different than shaking hands and that since they see the whole thing as causual anyone else who doesn't has a screw loose and it's there problem, not mine."

For a lot of people, on an emotional level sex does mean that you are fully committed to the individual. It's a sign of just that. Your example only results when someone who's emotionally stunted and can't grasp this fact just sleeps with someone because they're hot, leads them to believe it's more than that, and then dumps them without a second thought afterwards.

Maybe both situations are a problem?

If both partners want casual sex - no problem.
If both partners want a committed relationship before sex - no problem.

If there is a mismatch there, you've probably got a problem. This is especially true if one person is hiding or lying about what they want.

Of course, it's also a problem if people never even discuss it. I'd say that the most common irresponsible thing that people do as far as sex goes is fail to actually discuss anything with their partner. They don't discuss protection. They don't discuss what to do in case of a pregnancy. They don't discuss what they want out of it (ie. casual or not). And then shit blows up in the end.

I believe that would be physically and mentally impossible for a human being.


That's okay, you're allowed to be wrong.


My second thought on that is.....why even bother having sex if you feel nothing?

You appear to be confusing 'feeling' with 'feelings'.

An orgasm is awesome, but it isn't an emotion.

That's okay, you're allowed to be wrong.
Prove me wrong then.

You appear to be confusing 'feeling' with 'feelings'.

An orgasm is awesome, but it isn't an emotion.
Nope....I don't think that I am confused in the least.

Knights of Liberty, you seem to have a slight inability to consider other points of view here.

Emotional responsibility and sex differs for each individual, as I said. Because they differ for each individual, you need to take that into account before you go willy nilly and pork Nilly with your willy.

Prove me wrong then.


Masturbation rarely has emotion attached, and yet it's still 'sex'.

You can have sex that doesn't change your feelings at all - you feel no differently about the person AFTER the sex, than you did before. 'Friends with benefits', kind of thing.

It's not a matter of proving you wrong, you just are.

Here's a hint: generalisations like "that would be physically and mentally impossible for a human being" are almost always wrong, and tend to just make you look silly.


Nope....I don't think that I am confused in the least.

Is pain an emotion? No - it's just a sensory response. It can CAUSE emotions, without BEING an emotion.

If sex is (for you) about getting an orgasm, then emotions are irrelevent.

Knights of Liberty, you seem to have a slight inability to consider other points of view here.

Emotional responsibility and sex differs for each individual, as I said. Because they differ for each individual, you need to take that into account before you go willy nilly and pork Nilly with your willy.

Are you fucking kidding me? I have said time and time again, I am well aware its different for each person.

Its people aguing with me who cant consider other points of view. I am saying that it is possible for people to have sex without feeling emotions. Others are telling me Im wrong, and in so many words, that they know my feelings better than me. Who cant consider different points of view?

Please, read the whole thread before you comment, k?

I believe that would be physically and mentally impossible for a human being.


Well, Im glad you know my emotions better than me. Please tell me, oh great one, what am I feeling right now?


:rolleyes:

Well, Im glad you know my emotions better than me. Please tell me, oh great one, what am I feeling right now?


Dude! Put that away! :o

It's not a matter of proving you wrong, you just are.

Here's a hint: generalisations like "that would be physically and mentally impossible for a human being" are almost always wrong, and tend to just make you look silly.



Indeed, people like Neesika and I prove him wrong. If he wants to argue with us whats in our heads, thats just something hes going to lose.

Indeed, people like Neesika and I prove him wrong. If he wants to argue with us whats in our heads, thats just something hes going to lose.

Unless he has morphine and a spoon.

Are you fucking kidding me? I have said time and time again, I am well aware its different for each person.

Its people aguing with me who cant consider other points of view. I am saying that it is possible for people to have sex without feeling emotions. Others are telling me Im wrong, and in so many words, that they know my feelings better than me. Who cant consider different points of view?

Please, read the whole thread before you comment, k?
Then why is it you're constantly tossing everyone into groups like "super uber religious" if they don't agree with your views?

Masturbation rarely has emotion attached, and yet it's still 'sex'.
Masturbation is not "sex", and if you rarely feel an emotion as a result, then you are doing it wrong. :tongue:

You can have sex that doesn't change your feelings at all - you feel no differently about the person AFTER the sex, than you did before. 'Friends with benefits', kind of thing.
That doesn't prove that you are devoid of "feelings" before, during or after the act.

It's not a matter of proving you wrong, you just are.
Just because you say so, I have to trust that you are the ultimate authority on this matter? Not happening my friend.

Here's a hint: generalisations like "that would be physically and mentally impossible for a human being" are almost always wrong, and tend to just make you look silly.
Yet, you cannot prove me wrong, which makes you look silly.

Is pain an emotion? No - it's just a sensory response. It can CAUSE emotions, without BEING an emotion.
What "causes" an erection?

If sex is (for you) about getting an orgasm, then emotions are irrelevent.
Yet it still involves emotions.

Then why is it you're constantly tossing everyone into groups like "super uber religious" if they don't agree with your views?

Yep, except I havent been doing that.


You really havent read this thread, have you? If your going to make idiotic and uninformed posts, dont bother.

Just because you say so, I have to trust that you are the ultimate authority on this matter? Not happening my friend.


Yet, you cannot

No, but I can easily prove you wrong.


I dont have to feel emotions when I have sex. It is totally possible for me to have emotionless sex. In fact, Ive done. A few times.

Now, you can tell me that you know better whats going on in my head than I do, and pretend like you know more about my life than I do, but that would just make you look silly.


How about this one? Im right, I have a gut feeling about it. You should be abe to accept that arguement.

Masturbation is not "sex",


Sure it is. It's a sexual process, designed to elicit a sexual response.


...and if you rarely feel an emotion as a result, then you are doing it wrong. :tongue:


Not at all. When I'm writing, or being otherwise creative, artistic... or just trying to think things out, sexual hunger can be distracting.

As such, masturbation is a means to an end - reduce the hunger, by satisfying it.

That's not an emotional process, because orgasm doesn't have to be.


That doesn't prove that you are devoid of "feelings" before, during or after the act.


You don't have to be 'devoid of feeling' - it just doesn't have to connect to emotion.


Just because you say so, I have to trust that you are the ultimate authority on this matter? Not happening my friend.


You should listen to me. Your 'absolute' argument is an absolute, and tht means all it takes is ONE evidence of dissent to prove it false.

There are two other clear and present sources of dissent ASIDE from me. I am the 'ultimate authority', because all I have to do is exist, to make your argument bullshit.

And I DO exist.

So... your argument IS bullshit.

QED.


Yet, you cannot prove me wrong, which makes you look silly.


I do prove you wrong. As do at least two others posting...


What "causes" an erection?


Vasodilation, right?


Yet it still involves emotions.

That's nonsensical.

Yep, except I havent been doing that.


You really havent read this thread, have you? If your going to make idiotic and uninformed posts, dont bother.

Oh, and by the way, when youre done frantically looking for nonexistant evidence that Ive been saying that, and inevitably come up short, I expect an apology.

Oh, and by the way, when youre done frantically looking for nonexistant evidence that Ive been saying that, and inevitably come up short, I expect an apology.

so where's my Apology (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14154899&postcount=114)?

so where's my Apology (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14154899&postcount=114)?

Turn abouts fair play. I apologize for lumping you in with Sssh.
At least you could actually make an arguement.

I have a Halloween party to go to. Night all.

Turn abouts fair play. I apologize for lumping you in with Sssh.
At least you could actually make an arguement.

Ssek? yeah, I don't like his arguments, hence I didn't want to get involved with his arguments. but I can see where It seems like I was arguing with him as a 'partner'.

btw. people who say "they don't feel any emotional attachment after boffing a guy/gal", I aknowledged by saying they had better control over their emotions. not everyone does. hence it's not saying you (or others) are getting an emotional attachment/not getting it, it's more like saying you're (and others) are better at controlling your emotional state (in the area of sex,) thus you "don't feel any attachment." BEEEG difference. ;)

I dont have to feel emotions when I have sex. It is totally possible for me to have emotionless sex. In fact, Ive done. A few times.
Somehow, that doesn't surprise me, but I still think you are full of it. :D

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me, but I still think you are full of it. :D

In other words, your brilliant defence, is to claim that every person who doesn't fit your pre-judged criteria... is lying.

Nice.

In other words, your brilliant defence, is to claim that every person who doesn't fit your pre-judged criteria... is lying.

Nice.
No, actually, I start getting this image of a bunch of mindless/emotionless drones that are capable of getting an erection without being sexually aroused.

Either that or a zombie with rigor mortis.

No, actually, I start getting this image of a bunch of mindless/emotionless drones that are capable of getting an erection without being sexually aroused.

Either that or a zombie with rigor mortis.

Sexual arousal is an emotion now?

I'll be sure to tell that to my usual morning boner. I didn't even realise just emotionally charged waking up was.

Seriously, you guys need to stop trying to tell us what we feel or don't feel, before you make seem even MORE like conceited asses. You've had 5 posters telling you "Sorry, but I've personally had sex without it being emotionally charged before". Shove your universal theories back where they belong.

It is perfectly possible to have sex without involving emotions, and the many testimonies here (that outnumbers those who would try to claim that ALL sex is emotionally charged because it's impossible for it not to be) are more than enough proof of that.

No, but I can easily prove you wrong.
Yet, you fail to prove your point.

Now, you can tell me that you know better whats going on in my head than I do, and pretend like you know more about my life than I do, but that would just make you look silly.
It is not a matter of determining "whats going on in your head", or whether I "know more about your life than you do", it is about understanding what makes sexual intercourse possible, and the emotions that are involved. Your lack of making that connection is the silly part of this argument.

I will give you a little wiggle room (http://freednerd.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/sexual-intercourse-emotions-and-the-frontal-lobes/), but only a little.....

Erections and ejaculation are controlled by spinal reflexes. Even men that have spinal damage (where the spine is disconnected from the brain) can reach an erection and become fathers; though they could not have an orgasm, or be conscious of the fact that they were erect without visual or verbal confirmation (Carson, 2004, 331). Extensive research has led me to the conclusion that only in rare cases, such as the example just mentioned above, or in the case of an unconscious rape victim, can an individual be a participant in sexual intercourse without an emotional response. Even holding this opinion, I can not intelligently state that human sexual intercourse could take place without emotional processing. At least one partner would have to exhibit an emotional response to the physical process.......

In conclusion, there is a thin line between emotions and sexual stimuli in humans. For most animals, intercourse is a primal instinct used to further their species by reproduction and is impossible outside of the ovulation period. In contrast, human intercourse is not only important to further our species, but also to tie a physical act with the need for emotional intimacy with a partner. Psychological disorders, more often than not, have an effect on sexual enjoyment. Many areas of the brain, chiefly sections of the limbic system, play an important part in the emotional and physical aspects of sexual intimacy. Emotions are a vital part of normal sexual processes, and to separate the two functions is not only rare, it is nearly impossible.

Same can be said of driving a car. You can fuck up the life of someone and possibly that of a child. Or even several.

Right, now sex is no different from driving a car. How many other stupid analogies are you people going to pull out of your ass? Sex is like "living," it's like breathing, it's like eating, it's "no different from any other social activity," now it's just like driving!

Maybe you people eat, breathe, drive cars and hang out with your buddies differently than I do, but I for one can see multiple and obvious qualitative differences between sex and non-sexual activities.

Like with this latest absurdity. I mean do I actually have to explain to you what the difference between fucking and driving a car is? Like how you need to be intimate with (by definition) another person to have sex, while you can and most likely should drive cars by yourself? One is a biological activity, the other is not? One forms the basis of most romantic relationships, parenthood and marriage, the other is a god damned transportation vehicle?

I guess I do, but I'm getting the distinct impression you'll handwave all that away in a ridiculous attempt to paint sex as some non-emotional activity. And then accuse me of "moralizing" or some shit.

And I will keep saying that what you say is not a valid argument, thanks.

Conveniently you can't really explain how...

You manage to both answer questions and sound moralizing at the same time. I commend you for your impressive multi-tasking capabilities.

...but oh! You can certainly accuse me of sounding "moralizing!" Well ho-ly shit, that's gotta be a valid argument!

Here in Québec where we give proper sex education and provide far-and-wide condom and contraceptive pill availability it's not.

I'm sure you've completely eradicated teen pregnancy, not to mention child abuse and sexual diseases, in your lovely Quebec. But that's not exactly relevant to what I said, even so. There are many problems with sex in the world today, and this attitude of "sex is no different from shaking hands!" is not going to help.

Yes. It's a wondrous thing, you know, taking precautions. It allows you to do something that, if you weren't careful about it, would be irresponsible. Only that if you're careful about it, suddenly it's not irresponsible.

And again, the requisite to be careful includes a level of maturity and responsibility. You know, that "emotional responsibility" that you and KoL think is a "myth."

I'm saying that potentially dangerous things are not dangerous if you're careful. Do you dispute the notion that protected casual sex among people who agree to it in good faith does not pose any significant risk, biological or emotional?

There's always an emotional risk. Yes, even for robots like you and KoL. You can pretend sex is a non-emotional activity for you no different from unconscious spasms during your sleep. You can claim that because there are more of you than there are of me that you're right. And you can accuse me of sounding "moralizing." None of which changes the fact that emotional responsibility is not a"myth."

I'm obviously not saying you get 'overly' emotional and sentimental about sex. Obviously you don't, you just save your emotionality for when people like me start "moralizing" and then you non-emotionally demand "apologies" and such. :p

Why is it so hard to imagine that different people might have different emotional reactions to similar situations?

That's not what is being claimed. What's being claimed is NO emotional reaction. NO emotional involvement. See continuous and absurd comparisons of sex to BREATHING, for example. And no, I don't believe a conscious, sober and healthy human can have sex with another with a complete lack of emotion. I'm rather skeptical of the concept of "feeling no emotions" at all.

Sexual arousal is an emotion now?

I'll be sure to tell that to my usual morning boner. I didn't even realise just emotionally charged waking up was.

Seriously, you guys need to stop trying to tell us what we feel or don't feel, before you make seem even MORE like conceited asses. You've had 5 posters telling you "Sorry, but I've personally had sex without it being emotionally charged before". Shove your universal theories back where they belong.

It is perfectly possible to have sex without involving emotions, and the many testimonies here (that outnumbers those who would try to claim that ALL sex is emotionally charged because it's impossible for it not to be) are more than enough proof of that.
Why perpetuate myth when you can revel in the truth?

As far as your "morning glory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12219374)" is concerned, try this on for size:

It is common for most sexually able males to wake up in the morning with a substantial erection. By erection we aren't talking about some builders scaffolding or a model of the Eiffel Tower - it is in reference to the erect male member. It goes by many other names - 'woody', 'stiffy', 'hard-on', or 'phwoarr!' - and there have been many scientific (and some not-so-scientific) theories put forward to explain why men suffer1 from a 'morning glory' (also the name of a common flowering plant), but to this date none have been proven.
Now....we know you want to tell the missus that you are "piss proud", but it really was a result of that mysterious lady you were dreaming about? :D

This raises a good issue

It is an odd prejudice, that any guy who goes around humping any girl that he can get his hands on makes him a STUD, but any girl who goes around humping any guy she can get is a SLUT

Well they mean the same thing, just to separate genders it is just one has got positive connotations to it and the other has got negative connotations to it.

I'll compare good sex to a good steak, and bad sex to a sandwich. The first two, I'd be quite happy with...the second pair wouldn't have a second chance :P

You don't like Sandwiches? What if it is a good sandwich? :p

I see where your coming from I do the same with a really good meal. I just wish I had sex as often as I ate. :( :p

You'd probably be skinnier because of the exercise


"What's the difference between an egg an da beetroot?"
You can beat an egg but you can't beat a root!

(Note for overseas readers: in Australia, "root" is slang for "fuck")

solution to obesity get laid more often....

No one is actually claiming they have 'sex like a robot' with no emotions whatsoever. What some of you lame ducks are attempting to do, however, is pretend that 'any emotion at all' means 'emtional attachment'.

Humans FEEL all sorts of things about sex, emotionally. But frankly, I'm as attached to some of my partners as I am to my vibrator. Which, because simple things seem unclear to some of you, is 'not at all'.

I'm not surprised by CanukHeaven's regularly scheduled smug insistence that he knows everyone better than they know themselves...but NONE of you have justified why any one of us should treat sex any differently than we treat any other enjoyable, yet risky activity. So excuse me while I don't.

I agree with you Neesika. Here's a little story I wrote:
A Visit from Doctor Shtupp

Sadie didn’t want to go to work. The pain was too great. It felt as if every joint in her body ached. She’s been passed over for promotion and she felt useless, ignored, a failure. It was her second day of lying in bed and she needed a doctor’s certificate. She didn’t want to see her regular doctor who knew her all too well and tended to dismiss her as an hysterical. So she reached for the phone directory. Doctors….. by location..…. Burwood…

Ahh! Dr Shtupp… home visits…. She dialed and he said he’d be over in an hour and a half. Sadie, relieved, read the news headlines then went to the shower. Dabs of cologne on her neck and wrists. Talc on her buxom buttocks and bounteous breasts. Then she slipped on her blue cotton dressing gown and put on the coffee percolator.

The good doctor arrived and Sadie welcomed him like the new messiah.
“Thank god you’ve come doctor. I think I have chronic fatigue…..”

Doctor Shtupp looked concerned. His deep blue eyes looked rather fatigued as well: “How long have you been feeling this way.”

As Sadie recounted her litany of ailments, Doctor Shtupp’s eyelids began to close over his deep blue eyes.

“Doctor, are you all right?” asked the highly compassionate Sadie.

“Oh! Er, yes! Sorry, I was up all night delivering a baby.”

“How wonderful! A boy or a girl?”

“A healthy girl! And her parents are over the moon! Do you have anything to drink?”

“Oh doctor! Sorry! I was quite forgetting myself. What would you like? Tea or coffee..or something stronger?”

“Something stronger might do the trick.”

Sadie slid out of bed modestly. Even so, the doctor caught a glimpse of a pink and full breast. She could feel his eyes following her movements as she walked towards the kitchen. She was also aware that she was putting more sway into her hips as she walked. The infuriating thing was that the pain and lethargy had completely disappeared.

She returned with a bottle of scotch and two glasses. She couldn’t allow him to drink alone.

After the second large glass (she’d insisted he have another and had matched him for companionship), they discussed the birth and how long he’d been at his practice. She had then turned to the topic of her disappointment at work and she remembered that she had called him because of her ailments.

“So where is the tension?” Doctor Shtupp enquired.

Sadie indicated her back, her neck, her stomach, her calves and thighs.

“Well, we’d better examine you then. Take off your dressing gown.”

Sadie poured another stiff scotch for the both of them.

“These muscles certainly are tense. Do you have any massage oil?”

Sadie got up and fetched her sandalwood oil and wriggled out of her bra and panties.

She stood before him. Naked. Inviting. “Which way do you want me first, Doctor?”

“We’ll start face down, I think.” A warm flush was spreading across the doctor’s face.

He started at the feet. Carefully unknotting the tightness in the toes and the balls of the feet. Then he moved up though the ankles, calves and knees. His strong fingers kneading her muscles. By the time he reached her thighs she was already moist with anticipation. Her pelvis couldn’t keep still and she was arching and thrusting in accord with his deft manipulation. Now he was grabbing her buttocks and squeezing and patting them. All the time he was rubbing the sandalwood into her skin.

At last he started on her neck and back. It was bliss. She had never felt this relaxed and yet… not relaxed…. ready. He was rubbing oil into her temples and deep into her hair now.

“Can I turn around, Doctor?”

Sadie’s eyes were wells of sensuous delight. The doctor was before her. His hands were caressing her breasts and her nipples were taut. Now he was playing with her tummy fat.

“Hmmm!” thought Sadie disapprovingly, “This is not my best feature!”

But the doctor was calmly moving systematically down her body. Sadie was by now, far from calm.

“Can I help you with your clothes, Doctor?”
Sadie unbuckled his belt and unclipped and unzipped his trousers. Sadie did not stop at that. She wanted to examine his body now. She peeled down his underpants and cradled his penis in her hand. It began to stiffen. Sadie guided him down to her and put him inside . By now she was almost suffering from the anticipation. Sadie groaned with each thrust from the good doctor and felt herself tightening around him as she came. The doctor came soon after and they lay together, a gooey sweet-smelling mess.

“Doctor, do you bulk bill?” she asked.

No one is actually claiming they have 'sex like a robot' with no emotions whatsoever. What some of you lame ducks are attempting to do, however, is pretend that 'any emotion at all' means 'emtional attachment'.


Yes, like KoL and crew.

Hence, "I have no romantic attachment to my sex partner!" leads to the conclusion of "Sex is just like breathing, or eating a sandwich!"

But the conclusion doesn't follow.

but NONE of you have justified why any one of us should treat sex any differently than we treat any other enjoyable, yet risky activity. So excuse me while I don't.

You can go bungee jumping with your children, right? If you were into bungee jumping.

...how about a sex orgy?

No, actually, I start getting this image of a bunch of mindless/emotionless drones that are capable of getting an erection without being sexually aroused.

Either that or a zombie with rigor mortis.

Ejaculation is possible without erection, and erection is possible without sexual arousal.

The fact that you choose to pretend you don't know these things, says more about you than it does about any 'drones'.

Yes, like KoL and crew.

Hence, "I have no romantic attachment to my sex partner!" leads to the conclusion of "Sex is just like breathing, or eating a sandwich!"

But the conclusion doesn't follow. Uh, you've yet to prove why it doesn't. Sex is like any other activity. You enjoy it the way you enjoy it. It has risks associated with it that you have to take into account....like any other activity.

If, for you, it's something special and mystical and unlike anything else, great. Good for you.



You can go bungee jumping with your children, right? If you were into bungee jumping.

...how about a sex orgy?

Huh?

You don't have sex with your kids around...at least I don't, so wtf? I also don't pee in public...what's your fucking point? There are any number of activities I'd not do with my kids...you're REALLY grasping at straws here.

You can go bungee jumping with your children, right? If you were into bungee jumping.

...how about a sex orgy?

No matter how good the bungee jump, I doubt its going to 'get me there'.


This idea that - if there's no emotion attached, things are indistinguishable from one another - is ridiculous.

I might eat a burger that stirs no emotion - but fills my stomach. That doesn't mean that reading a textbook also fills my stomach.

You're making a claim of some kind of global equivalence, just because the same amount of emotion is attached - but it's obviously bullshit.

I'm guessing that Ssek's point is that there are limits.

However, it could have been made more elegantly and less prudishly.

Alexandra Kollentai was a Bolshevik who argued for free love. She said, "Sex is like water - when you're thirsty, you drink"
To which the prudish Lenin replied, "Yes but not from a dirty glass"

I'm guessing that Ssek's point is that there are limits.

However, it could have been made more elegantly and less prudishly.

Alexandra Kollentai was a Bolshevik who argued for free love. She said, "Sex is like water - when you're thirsty, you drink"
To which the prudish Lenin replied, "Yes but not from a dirty glass"

Sure. There are limits. You don't take a baby bungee jumping, you don't fuck your family, you don't eat broken glass. There are all kinds of limits - but it doesn't make the COMPARISONS any more realistic, or relevant to the debate.

Ssek asserting that there is ANY kind of correlation between emotionless sex, and other emotionless actions (like most eating, etc) is obviously flawed.

I agree with you G & I. I don't think that any sex can be totally emotionless. But a lot of sex is of the non-loving kind.
It doesn't make it bad or anything. Clearly lustful sex is a good thing and loving and lustful sex is generally better.

I agree with you G & I. I don't thing that any sex is totally emotionless. But a lot of sex is of the non-loving kind.
It doesn't make it bad or anything. Clearly lustful sex is a good thing and loving and lustful sex is generally better.

Sex doesn't have to be completely emotionless, in this context. If there is emotion, but it is connected to the SEX then it is not intrinsically connected to the partner, and vice-versa.

I think some people have tried to finagle the meanings to some weird esoteric point. I can have 'emotionless sex' with a partner I already cared about, or I can have 'emotional' sex with a person I didn't care about BEFORE, and still won't care about after.

The question - I think - is "IS there any IMPLICIT link between the sex and the emotion"? Thousands of years of prostitution suggests the common answer is 'no'.

Yes, like KoL and crew.

Hence, "I have no romantic attachment to my sex partner!" leads to the conclusion of "Sex is just like breathing, or eating a sandwich!"



No, no it doesnt. I have no romantic attatchments to my sex partner. But it isnt lik eating a sandwitch.


Youre desperate.


You can go bungee jumping with your children, right? If you were into bungee jumping.

...how about a sex orgy?

Yeah, youre desperate.

No, no it doesnt. I have no romantic attatchments to my sex partner. But it isnt lik eating a sandwitch.


If you do it right, your hands and face end up messy and sticky?

It is kind of like eating a sandwich... :o

Yes, like KoL and crew.

Hence, "I have no romantic attachment to my sex partner!" leads to the conclusion of "Sex is just like breathing, or eating a sandwich!"

But the conclusion doesn't follow.



You can go bungee jumping with your children, right? If you were into bungee jumping.

...how about a sex orgy?


What, exactly, is your problem? Why are you so angry over the knowledge that people can have sex without a romantic attatchment? Why are you so eager to deny it, what does it effect you?

What, exactly, is your problem? Why are you so angry over the knowledge that people can have sex without a romantic attatchment? Why are you so eager to deny it, what does it effect you?

Not that it applies in this case, but I've noticed that people who can't get any, are often virulently bitter about how those who CAN get some, are getting it.

But, I wouldn't want to assume that Ssek is just bitter because he/she ain't getting any.

But frankly, I'm as attached to some of my partners as I am to my vibrator. Which, because simple things seem unclear to some of you, is 'not at all'.

Not sure whether to take that as those are the partners you're really attached to, or the ones you aren'y really attached to...
:p

Huh?

You don't have sex with your kids around...at least I don't, so wtf? I also don't pee in public...what's your fucking point? There are any number of activities I'd not do with my kids...you're REALLY grasping at straws here.

If sex is, as you claimed no different from "any other enjoyable, yet risky activity," then why would you NOT have sex with your kids around?

Or with them, for that matter? It's just a simple pleasurable activity. ;)

The point is sex IS different from other activities, and that is why you DO treat it differently. That is why everyone does. And that is why the claims of how it's not any different from [insert absurd non-sexual activity here], or that you treat it no differently, carry no strength.

No, no it doesnt. I have no romantic attatchments to my sex partner. But it isnt lik eating a sandwitch.


No it isn't. Nor is it like breathing, driving a car, bungee jumping, or any of the other bloody stupid comparisons made in an attempt to paint sex as uber-casual. I'm glad we're in agreement finally.

Youre desperate.

Yeah, youre desperate.

Not that it applies in this case, but I've noticed that people who can't get any, are often virulently bitter about how those who CAN get some, are getting it.

But, I wouldn't want to assume that Ssek is just bitter because he/she ain't getting any.

"I wouldn't want to make an ad hominem argument, but [continues to make an ad hominem argument]."

Yeah. Real impressive there guys. I must disagree because I'm "desperate" and "can't get any." Can't be because I just, you know, disagree. No! Anyone who disagrees with you must be a loser who doesn't get as much sex as you!

It's amusing since, you know, if sex is just like bungee jumping or reading a good book, why a lack of it would have any kind of psychological affect at all. In your non-ad-hominem ad hominems, you are presuming that I'm right and that sex isn't just like eating a sandwich, but rather an intense, intimate, primal and yes even emotional (gasp! shock!) activity.

If sex is, as you claimed no different from "any other enjoyable, yet risky activity," then why would you NOT have sex with your kids around?

Or with them, for that matter? It's just a simple pleasurable activity. ;)

The point is sex IS different from other activities, and that is why you DO treat it differently. That is why everyone does. And that is why the claims of how it's not any different from [insert absurd non-sexual activity here], or that you treat it no differently, carry no strength.Or driving. Do you get emotionally attached while driving?

I do! I often get emotional with other drivers - even with positive emotions on some occasions!

Hands up if you like fucking! (I thought so - a lot of you)
Hands down if they were all emotionally satisfying experiences! (That's a lot of hands went down)
Hands up if you'd do it just for the lust or curiosity? (hell that's a lot of hands!)

Or driving. Do you get emotionally attached while driving?
I don't but i know of one guy who did and boy he was a very bad driver. The key to knowing who is good at driving and who is bad is the ones who say they can drive anywhere and take no effort at all are the scary ones.
I do! I often get emotional with other drivers - even with positive emotions on some occasions!
no this isn't about you selling yourself at the side of the road (nudge nudge wink wink, saynomore saynomore):wink:
Hands up if you like fucking! (I thought so - a lot of you)
Hands down if they were all emotionally satisfying experiences! (That's a lot of hands went down)
Hands up if you'd do it just for the lust or curiosity? (hell that's a lot of hands!)

Why did i have an urge to raise my hand when i read that?

Or driving. Do you get emotionally attached while driving?

No, but I don't feel revulsion and horror at the concept of driving with family members either.

If sex is, as you claimed no different from "any other enjoyable, yet risky activity," then why would you NOT have sex with your kids around?

Or with them, for that matter? It's just a simple pleasurable activity. ;)


I dont watch R-rated movies with my young cousins around either. Is that a deep, emotional activity? Watching Terminator 2: Judgement Day?

"I wouldn't want to make an ad hominem argument, but [continues to make an ad hominem argument]."

Yeah. Real impressive there guys. I must disagree because I'm "desperate" and "can't get any." Can't be because I just, you know, disagree. No! Anyone who disagrees with you must be a loser who doesn't get as much sex as you!


Yeah, see Im not attacking you, I meant your desperate as in grabbing at straws, as in your running out of arguements.

Besides. You really shouldnt act all offended after youve called me a robot and a sociopath just because I disagree. One really shouldnt fling insults if one is going to run off crying when theyre returned in kind.

I wish someone called me a robot, i could be so cool as a robot, at least that way i'd have a body i desire.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

Well, the act of sex is the most intimate action two individuals can partake in (next to marriage.) The emotional bond that is created is just as strong as the physical bond: Most sexually active couples have been together for quite some time.

No, but I don't feel revulsion and horror at the concept of driving with family members either.Lucky, lucky bastard.

Now consider reckless driving. Some people like doing risky things that they wouldn't if their kids were along for the ride. To bring the discussion back to emotional attachment: All you've done is shown that people will generally not have sex with their kids around. Other than that, it pretty much is just like any other risky or non-risky activity. I don't feel comfortable dancing with my mom, for instance, for similar reasons why I don't feel comfortable having sex with my mom in the same room.

There's an intimacy involved in sex that doesn't occur in a lot of other activities, but besides that, it's not much different than going on a walk, as someone I slept with pointed out how she felt about me.

Some people I know place a higher "attachment" value on sex than making out. I'm the exact opposite. I wouldn't make out with someone that I'm only going to go to bed with; I reserve that for serious, loving relationships. But not everybody feels the way I do about that.

Well, the act of sex is the most intimate action two individuals can partake in (next to marriage.) No. French kissing is.

I find I'm only interested in giving head to people I'm fairly attached to. I gave head to a 'just friend' a while back and I didn't enjoy it. So now that's sort of reserved for people I love.

Animalistic, dirty penetrative sex, on the other hand, can be shared with people I am not particularly fond of on a deeper emotional level.

What I take from this is that it's very much about personal boundaries and beliefs, and those of you getting all frothy and demanding that we see it YOUR way should just seriously shut the fuck up.

I certainly don't care what turns YOUR crank.

I find I'm only interested in giving head to people I'm fairly attached to. I gave head to a 'just friend' a while back and I didn't enjoy it. So now that's sort of reserved for people I love.

Animalistic, dirty penetrative sex, on the other hand, can be shared with people I am not particularly fond of on a deeper emotional level.

What I take from this is that it's very much about personal boundaries and beliefs, and those of you getting all frothy and demanding that we see it YOUR way should just seriously shut the fuck up.

I certainly don't care what turns YOUR crank.

This. /thread.

I find I'm only interested in giving head to people I'm fairly attached to. I gave head to a 'just friend' a while back and I didn't enjoy it. So now that's sort of reserved for people I love.
Therefore, some sort of emotional attachment is required to derive the most pleasure for you. The "other" service you provided created a negative emotional response.

Animalistic, dirty penetrative sex, on the other hand, can be shared with people I am not particularly fond of on a deeper emotional level.
BTDT....it tends to leave one with an empty unfulfilled feeling. It still requires an emotional stimulus to take part in the act.

What I take from this is that it's very much about personal boundaries and beliefs, and those of you getting all frothy and demanding that we see it YOUR way should just seriously shut the fuck up.
You don't like rebuttal? If not, perhaps you should heed your own advice?

I certainly don't care what turns YOUR crank.
The topic isn't about what turns ones' crank. :D

Therefore, some sort of emotional attachment is required to derive the most pleasure for you. The "other" service you provided created a negative emotional response. Service? Not unless I get paid for it.

I don't buy presents for people I don't love.

I don't buy meals for people I'm not very fond of. I don't lend them my books, my music, or my clothes.

Shockingly, AMAZINGLY...the emotional 'connection' comes FIRST. Sex, presents, meals, books, music and/or clothes do not create those connections first.


BTDT....it tends to leave one with an empty unfulfilled feeling. It still requires an emotional stimulus to take part in the act. No, it tends to leave YOU with an empty, unfulfilled feeling. I don't have sex with people unless I want to have sex...and if all I want is sex, and I get it, why on earth would I be left feeling unfulfilled?

The emotional stimulus is my desire to fuck. Fucking someone does not cause me to feel any particular way about them. As has been stated again, and again, I already feel some way about them. Indifferent (let's fuck, don't call please), fond (let's fuck, often, and do other things too) and very rarely, in love with (I'd like to fuck you until sex becomes physically impossible due to extreme old age). Sex is not suddenly going to alter any of that. If it does for you, that's nice.


You don't like rebuttal? If not, perhaps you should heed your own advice? I'm amazed you can even spell rebuttal, as bad as you are at it.

You can feel any way about sex. You cannot cause me to feel the way you do about it. But that's not even the most annoying thing about you. You honestly seem to believe that YOU know how I or KoL feel about sex, better than we do.

Which is hilarious, and pathetic all at the same time.




The topic isn't about what turns ones' crank. :D

You've turned it into that, because apparently what turns your crank is smugly making really poor arguments.

I'm not surprised by CanukHeaven's regularly scheduled smug insistence that he knows everyone better than they know themselves...but NONE of you have justified why any one of us should treat sex any differently than we treat any other enjoyable, yet risky activity. So excuse me while I don't.

It's justifiable to the individual, there's no way to justify it to everyone else because everyone's feels differently about it. It's not going to change and it doesn't have to so everyone should just stop trying.

Hence, "I have no romantic attachment to my sex partner!" leads to the conclusion of "Sex is just like breathing, or eating a sandwich!"

I frequently don't eat for twelve hours at a time because trying to outside of the controlled conditions the house provides can turn into an incredibly distressing experience, think about that for a minute.

It's justifiable to the individual, there's no way to justify it to everyone else because everyone's feels differently about it. It's not going to change and it doesn't have to so everyone should just stop trying. I agree. There's no reason to justify it to yourself (third person, impersonal)...if that's how it is to you, I see nothing wrong at all with that. But you are not me, and I'm not you, and that fact should never be in dispute. I'm not sure why it is here.


Me being able to fuck someone and not care about them more than I would about any other human being shouldn't in any way impact someone ELSE's ability to form a romantic attachment to their sex partner. I honestly can't see another reason to so virulently deny that I could do the above, unless it did.

BTDT....it tends to leave one with an empty unfulfilled feeling. It still requires an emotional stimulus to take part in the act.



No, see, if Im horny, and am looking for sex, and hook up with a girl, I feel pretty fulfilled. But, you know, what do I know? I just am me, how do I know what I feel?

Tell me CH, please, because you seem to know so much better with me, what do I feel right now?

I'd be willing to bet it's annoyance.

I'd be willing to bet it's annoyance.

Man, you know my emotions too?!?;)

BTDT....it tends to leave one with an empty unfulfilled feeling. It still requires an emotional stimulus to take part in the act.
I'd love to see the scientific study you're basing this assumption on.

Man, you know my emotions too?!?;)

I said I was pretty sure that you were annoyed, I didn't say that you were annoyed ;)

No, see, if Im horny, and am looking for sex, and hook up with a girl, I feel pretty fulfilled. But, you know, what do I know? I just am me, how do I know what I feel?

Tell me CH, please, because you seem to know so much better with me, what do I feel right now?
You are thinking that you better not let your future wife read this thread, especially statements like these:

I dont give a shit if sex is only about emotions for some people. What I do care about is the assumption that emotions are inherent and needed to have sex.

I can have sex without emotion.
And a few others that would make you look like a dead fish. :tongue:

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

My answer is in 10 years youll never hear the phrase applied to you again so dont worry about it. Its problem of young women who havnt figured out the world yet. Its also parent code that goes along with, do your homework, dont do drugs and dont get pregnant.

When you get older, youll know the difference between fucking and relationship sex(and so will your partner) and there will be plenty of time for both.

You are thinking that you better not let your future wife read this thread, especially statements like these:

And a few others that would make you look like a dead fish. :tongue:

I would think that if he were to take a wife she'd need to understand and accept these sort of things, and he wouldn't try sweeping it under the rug. Isn't that what the general consensus in this thread has been?

I would think that if he were to take a wife she'd need to understand and accept these sort of things, and he wouldn't try sweeping it under the rug. Isn't that what the general consensus in this thread has been?
I don't think that there has been a "general consensus in this thread" at all.

I don't think that there has been a "general consensus in this thread" at all.

In so far that two people keep trying to tell other people how they really feel despite overwhelming testimony to the contrary, you're right that we can't call it a consensus.

It is, however, a conclusion that was reached by the vast, overwhelming majority of people (which basically means everybody except you and Ssek).

In so far that two people keep trying to tell other people how they really feel despite overwhelming testimony to the contrary, you're right that we can't call it a consensus.

It is, however, a conclusion that was reached by the vast, overwhelming majority of people (which basically means everybody except you and Ssek).Which, in the English language, would be called a "general consensus" on the grounds that one or two exceptions run counter to the general opinion.
I don't think that there has been a "general consensus in this thread" at all.
Which is either because you didn't read anything but your and Ssek's posts or you're too intellectually dishonest to admit that there is a consensus solely on the grounds that you're not part of it.

I frequently don't eat for twelve hours at a time because trying to outside of the controlled conditions the house provides can turn into an incredibly distressing experience, think about that for a minute.

That's... odd. Perhaps for you it would be true to say that eating a sandwich is like sex?

I hope you're not one of the sex is like eating sandwiches crowd. Honestly, I pity people who either feel the need to pretend to have no feelings, or who honestly don't have them (sociopathy).

Lucky, lucky bastard.

Now consider reckless driving. Some people like doing risky things that they wouldn't if their kids were along for the ride.

Yes... so as to avoid risking the life of their child. And because no one wants to cause a car accident and outlive their children.

That doesn't apply to the question of sex between family members. A taboo which is rather strong, but which I guess doesn't affect the robots in this thread.

You are all of course trying to turn my argument into "deep romantic engagements" and such. The better strawman, the quicker it burns and the quicker you can clap yourselves on the backs for having a "consensus." Golly, there's no argument at all! I should just consider myself wrong because I'm a minority! ;)

To bring the discussion back to emotional attachment: All you've done is shown that people will generally not have sex with their kids around.

Yet you've failed to explain why that is, if sex is just any like any other pleasurable activity.

For that matter why do family members not have sex with each other, if it is just like any other pleasurable activity.

Hint - it's not just like any other pleasurable activity, no matter how little you wish to admit being both in a majority, and wrong.


I don't feel comfortable dancing with my mom, for instance,

A lot of people do. But even if you think dancing with your mom is OK, you certainly wouldn't consider having sex with her in the room. Or having sex with her.

WHY NOT?

After all, sex is just like any other activity. It's like BREATHING, as someone in the majority so astutely pointed out! Wouldn't you BREATHE with your mom in the same room?

There's an intimacy involved in sex that doesn't occur in a lot of other activities, but besides that, it's not much different than going on a walk, as someone I slept with pointed out how she felt about me.

... oh, "besides that." Yeah, besides the fact that sex is intimate, it's just like non-intimate activities! Totally!

*snip strawman arguments*Please don't use strawmen. They are hurted when you do =(

You are thinking that you better not let your future wife read this thread, especially statements like these:




And a few others that would make you look like a dead fish. :tongue:

Yep, except my future wife knows that Ive had one night stands before.

I actually care about my future wife though. And I cared about her before we had sex. Sex didnt create the bond.

Yep, except my future wife knows that Ive had one night stands before.

I actually care about my future wife though. And I cared about her before we had sex. Sex didnt create the bond.I wouldn't bother...he isn't actually looking to have a discussion, he just wants to blather on, for the sake of blathering.

Your wording makes it abundantly clear that you don't ALWAYS have sex without some bond with that person, but as we've both pointed out, sex does not magically create that bond. Both CH and his little friend Ssk will continue to ignore that and make ridiculous judgments about others, perhaps in an attempt to compensate for low-self esteem?

I wouldn't bother...he isn't actually looking to have a discussion, he just wants to blather on, for the sake of blathering.

Indeed. I should know better. CH is on my ignore list for a reason (sadly I can still read his posts when hes quoted).

I hope you're not one of the sex is like eating sandwiches crowd. Honestly, I pity people who either feel the need to pretend to have no feelings, or who honestly don't have them (sociopathy).

You are getting old. Tell me, do you intend to go on like this? Because I can then just throw you on ignore and be done with you and your pathetic little games.

Indeed. I should know better. CH is on my ignore list for a reason (sadly I can still read his posts when hes quoted).
This post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14159184&postcount=195)suggests that I am not on your ignore list, because you quoted me directly.

That would make you a less than honest person. :tongue:

This post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14159184&postcount=195)suggests that I am not on your ignore list, because you quoted me directly.

That would make you a less than honest person. :tongue:This post suggests to me that you're only trollin'.

You are thinking that you better not let your future wife read this thread, especially statements like these:


I just asked my wife.

She said 'it just means you can tell the difference between 'sex', and a 'relationship'. Sex is just sex, and it can just mean your body wants to get off, and you're tired of doing it by yourself'.

She said your 'dead fish' comment was wrong, also. Being able to differentiate between physical sex, and emotional connections doesn't suggest you are a less passionate lover - it suggests that intimacy can be about feelings... OR fucking... and they don't have to be connected.

And faced with the choice of believing YOU, or my wife, on this? I think I'll listen to my wife.

This post suggests to me that you're only trollin'.
Perhaps, and the reverse could also be true?

At any rate...post deleted.

This post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14159184&postcount=195)suggests that I am not on your ignore list, because you quoted me directly.

That would make you a less than honest person. :tongue:

Yeah, its easy. You click "show post". Youre still on my ignore list. I had planned to remove you after November 4th, but seeing your just and obnoxious and pitiful in debates outside of US politics, I think Ill keep you there.

I just asked my wife.

She said 'it just means you can tell the difference between 'sex', and a 'relationship'. Sex is just sex, and it can just mean your body wants to get off, and you're tired of doing it by yourself'.

She said your 'dead fish' comment was wrong, also. Being able to differentiate between physical sex, and emotional connections doesn't suggest you are a less passionate lover - it suggests that intimacy can be about feelings... OR fucking... and they don't have to be connected.

And faced with the choice of believing YOU, or my wife, on this? I think I'll listen to my wife.



Clearly youre lying and you and your wife are both robots and sociopaths. Sssk and CH say so.

Clearly youre lying and you and your wife are both robots and sociopaths. Sssk and CH say so.

Heh. It's the only possible answer, obviously.

:rolleyes:

Heh. It's the only possible answer, obviously.

:rolleyes:

And we should listen to them. Clearly, they know best what's in everyone else's heads. Because they say so.

This post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14159184&postcount=195)suggests that I am not on your ignore list, because you quoted me directly.

That would make you a less than honest person. :tongue:

Wow...didn't think you could get any more pathetic.

Teach me to underestimate you.

Perhaps, and the reverse could also be true?

At any rate...post deleted.

Except it's not. Which suggests you are a dishonest person.

Please don't use strawmen. They are hurted when you do =(

They'd be strawmen if people in this thread didn't actually make such comparisons. They did, so I'm addressing those ridiculous arguments. I understand why you'd want to avoid having to defend them, of course. But pretending no such comparisons were made isn't going to work. Read the thread, dude.

Heh. It's the only possible answer, obviously.

:rolleyes:

...but you are a robot...

...aren't you?

There is absolutely a such thing as "emotional responsibility" in sex. You should be responsible with your own emotions. You should be aware of what kind of sex you can handle and have enough self control only to engage in those activities. If you emotionally can't handle one night stands, don't have one night stands.

All responsibility goes back to you being responsible for yourself. You can't possibly be responsible for anyone else.

People often throw around the "emotional responsibility" that comes with having sex as a reason for why people shouldnt have sex before marriage.


My question is, what emotional responsibility is created by fucking someone? I only see emotional responsibilities in relationships, and sex has nothing to do with it. I dont think you have some mystical responsibility to everyone youve ever had a one night stand with.


So, seriously, what is this "emotional responsibility"?

Fucking and making love are different. Fucking is just fucking. Some people might feel like it's not, and it's their right to think that. Everyone has different beliefs. So, if you fuck someone who thinks fucking=love, perhaps you shouldn't fuck them if you don't love them.

...but you are a robot...

...aren't you?

Does not compute.

Errr... I mean... no.