# Pursuing sex is not a crime



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying" 
2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers

....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Skateboarding isn't a crime either, dude.


----------



## OkWhat (Feb 28, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying"
> 2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers
> 
> ....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.


Seriously Mr. Cosby??? :kitteh:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

OkWhat said:


> Seriously Mr. Cosby??? :kitteh:


lolwut


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

Nothing wrong with seeking sex but you should make sure the person you're doing it with is 100% on board. You shouldn't manipulate and "convince" a girl to have sex with you and vice versa. No means no. period. Because with girls (idk how it is with guys) but girls will eventually give in just because they feel alone and want to be wanted. And that is not a good reason to seek sex.


----------



## Deejaz (Feb 19, 2014)

Sex is not a crime. yes.

Pursuing sex solely for self-gratification is also not a _crime_, but have a number of negative implications.
I believe people refer to the _use_ of sex nowadays, rather than the act itself.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I crave order. People shagging and multiplying is bothersome.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

I think society certainly needs a healthier view on the subject, but I think we need a cultural shift in the opposite direction. And no one in our society sees sex as criminal... Immoral in certain circumstances, unsavory in others, but not a "crime." Are you asking people to stop judging you for your "pursuits?" Not an unreasonable request but I'm sure you understand that some people have conflicting views with you on this subject.


----------



## sleepingnereid (Oct 31, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying"
> 2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers
> 
> ....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.


you have manipuplative sexist men and goldigging catfighting b****** to thank for this assumption...


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Marsibil said:


> I crave order.


the point of order is efficiency, simplicity, being able to find things and not constantly needing to reinvent the wheel. order is a tool to make our lives easier, but what's the point of all of that if it restricts desire?



> People shagging and multiplying is bothersome.


I have the solution


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

Just be completely honest with the girl. don't worry about society. Just know that you are not being a jerk about it, as long as your conscience is knows that you aren't using these women and they want it as much as you, fuck what society says!


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I think the issue boils down to the fact that not everybody has the same views on/value judgements of sex and sexuality. It's easy (and actually sort of trendy) to say that sex is natural, doesn't harm anybody, and therefore is inherently normal and healthy. While I don't disagree with most of that statement, I am afraid the issue is not so simple. Some people will just naturally not view sex as something that can and ought to be pursued casually. Others will argue we should do away with monogamy and pursue as much sex as we want. Most people are somewhere down the middle. 

We do live in a somewhat hedonistic culture. If it feels good and doesn't hurt anybody, then do it. That sort of thing. I sometimes wonder if there isn't something to the more traditional (old fashioned?) view of sex though. Perhaps it is something that does need to be repressed to some extent, like most normal healthy urges. Perhaps pursuing it flippantly and casually is more harmful than we think.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Eckis said:


> I think society certainly needs a healthier view on the subject, but I think we need a cultural shift in the opposite direction. And no one in our society sees sex as criminal... Immoral in certain circumstances, unsavory in others, but not a "crime."


it's not about sex itself.
sex itself isn't seen as a crime, but attempts to seduce and pursue sex are seen as crimes. 



> Are you asking people to stop judging you for your "pursuits?"


this is worth reiterating:
_"you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult."_​it's no much that society is judging me, it's society making my job more difficult than it needs to be.



> Not an unreasonable request but I'm sure you understand that some people have conflicting views with you on this subject.


that would be why it's a topic of discussion.


----------



## Deejaz (Feb 19, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the point of order is efficiency, simplicity, being able to find things and not constantly needing to reinvent the wheel. order is a tool to make our lives easier, but what's the point of all of that if it restricts desire?


Interesting. But what would it take for someone to be a slave of such desires?


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's not about sex itself.
> sex itself isn't seen as a crime, but attempts to seduce and pursue sex are seen as crimes.


Not crimes. Just sleazy and unsavory. Which they are.



> this is worth reiterating:
> _"you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult."_​it's no much that society is judging me, it's society making my job more difficult than it needs to be.


Ever consider you're the one in the wrong?



> that would be why it's a topic of discussion.


Funny. I just meant that I see no reason for those views to change. In fact, I'd rather see it go in the opposite direction. I see society as too permissive of this sort of behavior.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

jada_artist said:


> Just be completely honest with the girl. don't worry about society. Just know that you are not being a jerk about it, as long as your conscience is knows that you aren't using these women and they want it as much as you, fuck what society says!


well first off, I am pursuing swords, not sheaths :wink:

as for the conscience part. it was never about that. see my previous post


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I feel like sex is so overrated.


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

> it's no much that society is judging me, it's society making my job more difficult than it needs to be


I guess you do have a point. More and more girls are hesitant. growing up we are taught to see sex as special and extremely intimate. and not to give it away to just anyone. And that's not completely true. sex can be just completely physical.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

emberfly said:


> I feel like sex is so overrated.


then you're not doing it right


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Baloney. People who are personally averse to having rampant sex aren't keeping you from doing it with those who aren't.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Marsibil said:


> Speak for yourself.


You do not know how unconscious and biological factors insinuate themselves into your decision making and personality. You cannot say you are master of your desires.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You do not know how unconscious and biological factors insinuate themselves into your decision making and personality. You cannot say you are master of your desires.


I can and I do. My unconscious told me so; I'm inclined to agree because it's me. Biological factors? I'm going to make a coffee.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Marsibil said:


> I didn't say you did, I'm saying what I'm saying; sex being a natural impulse isn't a compelling argument against whatever strict dogmatism that people choose to regulate it with. People's beliefs are their own, even if it was forced on them in youth, *they* chose to accept them.


Now I feel we are getting somewhat to the heart of the matter. 

I disagree though. Can we truly say that a child chooses to believe what they are told in their youth? Is there not years of study and research that tells us exactly otherwise? That children are impressionable and prone to internalizing what they are told / what environment they are immersed in?

And even if you agree with that, what would make you believe that adults simply "shed" everything they don't want? If it was so simple, why would many children with troubled childhoods need to go through therapy to overcome their past?

Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

How about shame? Shame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both are essentially contradictions of the self; believing one thing, but feeling another. Or believing one thing while trying to rectify it against another belief. Internal war and disagreement, basically. Lack of self acceptance, really, in the case of shame.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Now I feel we are getting somewhat to the heart of the matter.
> 
> I disagree though. Can we truly say that a child chooses to believe what they are told in their youth? Is there not years of study and research that tells us exactly otherwise? That children are impressionable and prone to internalizing what they are told / what environment they are immersed in?
> 
> ...


I'm aware of the mechanics, but are we talking about abusive upbringing? Because that would be a bit divergent from the matter at hand.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Marsibil said:


> I'm aware of the mechanics, but are we talking about abusive upbringing? Because that would be a bit divergent from the matter at hand.


Did you or did you not claim that people "chose" to accept their beliefs, even if said beliefs were forced on them in their youth? 

I am saying in response that internalized beliefs are not something you can necessarily discard with ease by "choice" of accepting them or not accepting them. Thus why I referenced shame and cognitive dissonance.

The reference to "troubled childhoods" was to illustrate a point. No, we are not talking primarily about abusive upbringing. We are talking about upbringing in general.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Did you or did you not claim that people "chose" to accept their beliefs, even if said beliefs were forced on them in their youth?
> 
> I am saying in response that internalized beliefs are not something you can necessarily discard with ease by "choice" of accepting them or not accepting them. Thus why I referenced shame and cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The reference to "troubled childhoods" was to illustrate a point. No, we are not talking primarily about abusive upbringing. We are talking about upbringing in general.


maybe forced was too strong a word, but more akin to verbally chastising a child for being violent or taking them to church despite their crying and wailing... anyway, an ideal (whatever the ideal that may be) and stable upbringing doesn't insure a stable person, and you can't always blame the history of person who turns into a menace... or just an asshole. An abusive upbringing doesn't mean they'll turn unstable either. Some people who grew up in abusive (or merely incompatible) households turn more sympathetic to perceived injustices. It's not solid.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Marsibil said:


> maybe forced was too strong a word, but more akin to verbally chastising a child for being violent or taking them to church despite their crying and wailing... anyway, an ideal (whatever the ideal that may be) and stable upbringing doesn't insure a stable person, and you can't always blame the history of person who turns into a menace... or just an asshole. An abusive upbringing doesn't mean they'll turn unstable either. Some people who grew up in abusive (or merely incompatible) households turn more sympathetic to perceived injustices. It's not solid.


Oh, I'm certainly not saying that upbringing is a one-size-fits-all method, or that any and all religious upbringing is harmful (if I was going to argue that, it would be a topic all its own).

Getting more general about it was so that I could talk about the idea of whether people can internalize stuff that is harmful to them through no will/choice of their own. I know there is no perfect way to raise a child. What I do know is that something like sexual shame is very easy for a child to internalize, at least in some cultures (I'm not entirely sure what the reasons for it being easy are - I just know I've heard it from the mouth of at least one psychologist who is also a parent).

And I don't think it's a stretch to say that growing up in an environment of anti-sexuality dogma can be a fast-track to sexual repression and shame. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. But the evidence of its effects is there if you look for it. I am just one example of many who still deals with some sexual shame due to the kind of religious upbringing I had.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Any person who is religious here is on my retard list and will be ignored "use your brains".

But apart from that wow the sexual ignorance here is disgusting , how dare you treat sex as a fowl and taboo disgusting action..

Sex as I've said many times now is more then just interaction it is an overlap through each other a art form between anatomy to anatomy externally and internally that is far greater and more beautiful then any religion could ever come close too.


----------



## MysticPuppy (Jul 19, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying"
> 2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers
> 
> ....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.


The problem isn't the pursuits of sex, rather what you do In those pursuits. If craving sex leads you to be an outright douche than yes you're pretty disguising. On the other hand if this desire is used constructively than it can be good In a sense... Although I wouldn't condone any pursuit of lower pleasure without a higher motivation because of its negative aspects.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Any person who is religious here is on my retard list and will be ignored "use your brains".
> 
> But apart from that wow the sexual ignorance here is disgusting , how dare you treat sex as a fowl and taboo disgusting action..
> 
> Sex as I've said many times now is more then just interaction it is an overlap through each other a art form between anatomy to anatomy externally and internally that is far greater and more beautiful then any religion could ever come close too.


Well that was pretty rude.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Just proving my point.


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

From a straight male perspective. What society thinks doesn't matter as long as sex is consensual and not unlawful. Manipulation is not that big of an issue because most girls are aware of this tactic and have their guard up. Usually, it is understood that a fling is just a fling. If one party has more expectations, it should be addressed for the sake of decency; both parties should be on the same page.

There has to be mutual attraction, if it's there I don't see what the problem is. Males, just as much as females, work to make attraction happen when they are seeking sex. Where I do see a problem is where one person gives in to sex because they they feel obliged due to other expectations. If that happens, you can't really blame the other person if he/she doesn't know of these expectations.

That isn't to say I'm totally incapable or unwilling to commit to a relationship. If in a relationship, sex is still an important part of the relationship, although pursuing it is less likely to be taboo. Either way, I don't have a problem with people consenting to engage in legal sexual activity. It is none of society's business or concern what goes on beneath the sheets, or in the dressing room.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

i once told a girl that i was after her sex and didn't want a relationship, and got a text from one of her friends who is an ex con talking about i was "sexually harassing her" and i was going to have to deal with him. keep in mind that she was the one who was engaging me, asked for my number, was texting me, i never even pursued her. before this, i even told her that all i wanted was the sex and she said no, and i was like...ok, cool. then she was still texting me, so i just reiterated that i wanted sex, and she got her ex con friend involved. so much drama ugh. i just told her as she was talking to me that "listen, i don't want any sort of romantic relationship with you...but if you're offering me the sex, then yes, i'm in. but, don't look to me for your boyfriend needs, because the answer is 'no' ".

needless to say, it didn't work out and her # was deleted. i just don't have time to bs around with this...i have a real life i'm trying to build, women and relationships are after i have a house, money, a career. right now, i'm in no position to be having actual relationships with women...

but i still want the sex idk idk *shrug* 

it's the hard life hahah


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That is exactly the problem. Our society is totally obsessed with sex, and swears it is ok, but I know it isn't. Come on now. You start playing, and people will hate. That is a fact. Man or woman. People get jelly. I said Freud would have a stroke if he saw America. He knows humans can't handle sexual freedom. It was repressed in his day, and now we got Pavlov's dog. Skin all over, and still a large stigma. Freud would slap our civilization across the face. I said we should bring him back, I want to see what he has to say. At least Islam is consistent on this issue. They say sex is off limits, and enforce that.


Wonder if sex would have as much appeal if there _wasn't _any stigma or taboo to it, though. It does help add some excitement to it.

...Or maybe that's just me.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

i feel like, how i go about getting my sex doesn't have to be agreeable to anyone but whoever it is i'm having sex with. if you don't like my sexual energy, then don't engage it. i'm not about to apologize for wanting something that feels awesome lol, and is fundamental to humanity. and if you're a guy, what you think about my approach is absolutely meaningless to me. go do something else, i don't care an iota what you think about my sexual life, your opinion is inconsequential, as is the opinion of all the women who i don't want to bed. 

and if you happen to be one of the few i am willing to engage sexually, all you have to say is no and i'm out of your life for good. but that's the thing, i'm out of your life. no sex=no relationship, zero contact, and that is my prerogative. i just can't kill myself engaging you other-wisely when i want you sexually. if i want you sexually, i want you sexually. i won't apologize for that, and that's something you'll know from the onset of our relationship. can't do it. won't do it. 

but, overall, i've gotten the sex i've desired so i have no real issues. you all do you, i'll do me. for me, it works, if you don't like it...get over it. find what works for you and keep your sex in your own lane. get it???


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

Why are people so obsessed with other people's sex life? Sexual jealousy is the only answer to that. Which is probably why 60 year old virgins in weird dresses are constantly trying to keep people from having some sexy fun and even use some fairy tale book to justify that position.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying"
> 2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers
> 
> ....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.



I think very few secular people have a problem with people pursuing sex. Sure, many people have a problem with people being manipulative, dishonest, objectifying etc. But that refers to specific attitudes towards sex rather than sexuality itself.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Deejaz said:


> You would agree then, that limiting this desire to a controllable state is essential?


limiting desire and having self control are not the same thing



> It starts becoming destructive when one believes that sex is only for 'fun' or for self-gratification and that it doesn't hurt anyone, it can be engaged with to the point of addiction. So, pursuing solely sex, to an extent, is not a 'crime' but destructive in essence.


it's destructive if you are deceitful and make the other person believe you want something that you don't (ie, if you tell them you want to be with them forever just pump and dumb them), but the notion that sex for recreational reasons is destructive is nothing but a thinly veiled moral high ground argument.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Any person who is religious here is on my retard list and will be ignored "use your brains".
> But apart from that wow the sexual ignorance here is disgusting , how dare you treat sex as a fowl and taboo disgusting action..
> Sex as I've said many times now is more then just interaction it is an overlap through each other a art form between anatomy to anatomy externally and internally that is far greater and more beautiful then any religion could ever come close too.


I am religious and we seem to be getting along just fine. not every Christian (or person of any religion) is a dogmatic, scientifically illiterate zealot who goes to Westboro Baptist Church every Sunday.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying"
> 2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers
> 
> ....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.


I think there are different issues. Assuming we are not talking about rape, then why do you say crime? If you mean socially objectionable, then I think it is not the pursuit of sex but pursuit of sex at any cost, that can be seen as objectionable. Your example of gold digger women, that's the same issue, idea of women being manipulative for money the way men being manipulative to get sex. If men or women pursue anything, be it sex or money or whatever, at any cost, it means that they can resort to manipulation and lies and fake promises and trickery of all sorts. Naturally, people are not going to think highly of these people and their actions.

Your point about women, I think part of that is associated with the fact that men are more likely to pursue sex as the goal than women. Maybe there's a biological reason for it. But also there is the added social issue in that women who pursue sex are seen as loose or sluts or at the very least, unladylike. And this is not necessarily a male view, as women can also judge such a woman for that behavior. 

These are the factors that came to me just now but maybe there are other issues too that I've overlooked.


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I am religious and we seem to be getting along just fine. not every Christian (or person of any religion) is a dogmatic, scientifically illiterate zealot who goes to Westboro Baptist Church every Sunday.


Dude, look at his signature line. 



> "Looking for a IRL future sexual friendship " - PM please


You think he gets it?

As far as your question. Be upfront, make sure its consensual, make sure the person is not a minor (I'm sure this is not an issue). Be upfront as to what your expectations are. Also be fair, if "feelings" do develop, let the person know so they can have a chance to back away (if that's not what they're looking for). As long as you've done all of that, societal expectations and morals are irrelevant.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

f8alz28 said:


> As far as your question. Be upfront, make sure its consensual. Be upfront as to what your expectations are. Also be fair, if "feelings" do develop, let her know so she can have a chance to back away (if that's not what she's looking for). As long as you've done all of that, societal expectations and morals are irrelevant.


I think you missed the point (also, I'm not looking for a "her" =P)



> make sure she's not a minor (I'm sure this is not an issue)


actually, it is, because people lie about their age so frequently. I have to check more IDs than a liquor store :dry:


----------



## Deejaz (Feb 19, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> limiting desire and having self control are not the same thing


I didn't say it is.


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

conscius said:


> Your point about women, I think part of that is associated with the fact that men are more likely to pursue sex as the goal than women. Maybe there's a biological reason for it. But also there is the added social issue in that women who pursue sex are seen as loose or sluts or at the very least, unladylike. And this is not necessarily a male view, as women can also judge such a woman for that behavior.
> 
> These are the factors that came to me just now but maybe there are other issues too that I've overlooked.


True. I think it's this very judgment you mentioned that shapes society's morality on the issue. Society has equivocated the terms _loose_ and _slut_ with the definition of _whore_. Sluts are not whores, whores get paid for it.

To me, the definition of "slut" is "an extroverted naughty girl."


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

f8alz28 said:


> True. I think it's this very judgment you mentioned that shapes society's morality on the issue. Society has equivocated the terms _loose_ and _slut_ with the definition of _whore_. Sluts are not whores, whores get paid for it.


exactly



> To me, the definition of "slut" is "an extroverted naughty girl."


to me, what most people call slut is just a woman who is an SP, Enneagram 2, 7 or 8 or an Sx dom


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I think you missed the point (also, I'm not looking for a "her" =P)
> 
> 
> actually, it is, because people lie about their age so frequently. I have to check more IDs than a liquor store :dry:


Dude, I totally did miss the point, my bad lol, I edited so it's PC.

You seriously card the people you bone? :laughing: WTF, that's a first. What if they give you a fake ID? :laughing: I find that funny as hell, but damn, that's a separate problem in and of itself if people are lying about their age. I mean, pursuing sex probably is a crime if their behavior can get adults in trouble.


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> exactly
> 
> 
> to me, what most people call slut is just a woman who is an SP, Enneagram 2, 7 or 8 or an Sx dom


Don't know much about types and enneagrams (still new to it all), but I think calling all women who fit in that type is too *broad* of a statement about *broads*, lol.

I think _extroverted_ and _naughty_ is more directed. But then again, I think we should have a female's input on what the proper definition of _slut_ should be. Do any of the women care to chime in?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

f8alz28 said:


> Dude, I totally did miss the point, my bad lol, I edited so it's PC.
> You seriously card the people you bone? :laughing: WTF, that's a first.


better safe than sorry 



> What if they give you a fake ID? :laughing:


this is always a possibility, but there are only so many precautions I can take. 



> I find that funny as hell, but damn, that's a separate problem in and of itself if people are lying about their age. I mean, pursuing sex probably is a crime if their behavior can get adults in trouble.


exactly :laughing:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

The pursuit of sex in and of itself is amoral because most people are sexually inclined, and we have needs. Fair play, no biggie.

But the _way_ in which you pursue sex is a moral issue since it includes treating that person with respect. Anything less than treating them as an autonomous rational being who is inclined to make their own decisions - even if that means turning you down - is wrong.

If you try and use clever "tricks" to reduce the chances someone will turn you down you are a) insecure, b) immature and c) manipulative. Part of the risk involved in the pursuit of sex is being turned down. Accept that, embrace it, and treat people like human beings, not sexual objects who exist solely for your pleasure, be it physical or psychological.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> The pursuit of sex in and of itself is amoral because most people are sexually inclined, and we have needs. Fair play, no biggie.
> 
> But the _way_ in which you pursue sex is a moral issue since it includes treating that person with respect. Anything less than treating them as an autonomous rational being who is inclined to make their own decisions - even if that means turning you down - is wrong.
> 
> If you try and use clever "tricks" to reduce the chances someone will turn you down you are a) insecure, b) immature and c) manipulative. Part of the risk involved in the pursuit of sex is being turned down. Accept that, embrace it, and treat people like human beings, not sexual objects who exist solely for your pleasure, be it physical or psychological.


Or maybe because they know that is what works. Take an example of a male player. How does he actually play? These women clearly want to have sex with him, and he wants to have sex with them. What is the problem? Civilization. Ethics. So, he has to create this front to get something physical, that a woman already wants to give him. It is like any business. You smile and shake hands. It is just part of the show. Human mating rituals are absurd.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Or maybe because they know that is what works. Take an example of a male player. How does he actually play?* These women clearly want to have sex with him*, and he wants to have sex with them. What is the problem? Civilization. Ethics. So, he has to create this front to get something physical, that a woman already wants to give him. It is like any business. You smile and shake hands. It is just part of the show. Human mating rituals are absurd.


So if (in his head) these women are that desperately soaked for him already, why does he feel the need to deceive? Surely they're already flocking to him like moths to a flame

No, in no other form of social contact is the use of deception or manipulation seen as anything other than a sheer form of disrespect that deserves scorn. So dating or casual sex should not be an exception.

It's much more likely he just has to tell himself they're that desperate for him, because he can't bear the thought that they aren't and he's a nobody. Projection is one helluva bitch like that. 

I think we need to reconstruct the gender norms so that being 'male' doesn't mean _sleeping with as many women as possible _and _being a player_. No one likes a player anyway. He's usually a complete douche who guys don't trust around their girlfriends, and girls don't like because he's a douche anyway.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> So if (in his head) these women are that desperately soaked for him already, why does he feel the need to deceive? Surely they're already flocking to him like moths to a flame
> 
> No, in no other form of social contact is the use of deception or manipulation seen as anything other than a sheer form of disrespect that deserves scorn. So dating or casual sex should not be an exception.
> 
> ...


Because society says women, and men too, cannot be easy. We have to make it hard. He still ends up sleeping with them, so it doesn't really matter.

I was thinking of the movie A Beautiful Mind. The way John Nash tried to pick up women. lol. That doesn't work. But he knew human mating rituals were absurd. Like the bar scene, he walks up to a woman and says:

*I find you attractive. Your aggressive moves toward me... indicate that you feel the same way. But still, ritual requires that we continue with a number of platonic activities... before we have sex. I am proceeding with these activities, but in point of actual fact, all I really want to do is have intercourse with you as soon as possible.

*And Nash saw it is as a numbers game, which it is:

*If you haven't watched the movie "A Beautiful Mind", you should. It is about John Nash (played by Russell Crowe) who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his foundational contributions to game theory. This is what this tutorial is about. Nash put some structure around how players in a "game" can optimize their outcomes (if the movie is to be fully believed, this insight struck him when he realized that if all his friends hit on the most pretty girl, he should hit on the second-most pretty one).


**You know what Nash equilibrium is (from the other tutorial). Now we apply it to a scenario that is fairly realistic--parties to a cartel cheating. A cartel is a group of actors that agree (sometimes illegally) to coordinate their production/pricing to maximize their collective economic profit. What we will see, however, is that this is not a "Pareto optimal" state and they will soon start producing more than agreed on.
*


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because society says women, and men too, cannot be easy. We have to make it hard. He still ends up sleeping with them, so it doesn't really matter.


This isn't true, men are expected to be easy. Isn't that what being a player is?



> I was thinking of the movie A Beautiful Mind. The way John Nash tried to pick up women. lol. That doesn't work. But he knew human mating rituals were absurd. Like the bar scene, he walks up to a woman and says:
> 
> *I find you attractive. Your aggressive moves toward me... indicate that you feel the same way. But still, ritual requires that we continue with a number of platonic activities... before we have sex. I am proceeding with these activities, but in point of actual fact, all I really want to do is have intercourse with you as soon as possible.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what this has to do with using tricks to get sex. And the fact that other people do it, doesn't make it right.

If society's rules on sex make no sense to you, you are not being forced to participate in them. Just like society isn't forcing you to have sex either. You are always in choice, and it's by the choices you make that people will judge you.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> This isn't true, men are expected to be easy. Isn't that what being a player is?
> 
> 
> I have no idea what this has to do with using tricks to get sex. And the fact that other people do it, doesn't make it right.
> ...


I am kind of forced into obeying society's rules actually. They have more power than the individual. You are appealing to sexual stigma. You judge people over consensual sex.

Obviously you cannot see how game theory applies to mating. Exactly. Players do know that though. Nash tried to balance the equation, because it doesn't suit men like him. It suits more extroverted and socially fluid guys. He wanted it fair, and true. And went crazy in the process of course.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I am kind of forced into obeying society's rules actually. *They have more power than the individual.* You are appealing to sexual stigma. *You judge people over consensual sex.*
> 
> Obviously you cannot see how game theory applies to mating. Exactly. Players do know that though. Nash tried to balance the equation, because it doesn't suit men like him. It suits more extroverted and socially fluid guys. He wanted it fair, and true. And went crazy in the process of course.


In terms of who you have sex with in private? No, they don't. 
Well unless you're trying to sleep with someone who can't consent, like a child or something. Then the law rightfully gets involved yes.

No, I judge how people go about getting "consensual" sex. There's nothing consensual about manipulation or deception - how can you consent to what you don't know about? Please don't accuse me of things that aren't true.

And no, I don't use game theory to get sex, because I don't need it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> In terms of who you have sex with in private? No, they don't.
> Well unless you're trying to sleep with someone who can't consent, like a child or something. Then the law rightfully gets involved yes.
> 
> No, I judge how people go about getting "consensual" sex. There's nothing consensual about manipulation or deception. Please don't accuse me of things that aren't true.
> ...


Precisely, but men like Nash do. You don't know a man's perspective. So brilliant guys like Nash are pushed into the back of the gene pool, because he cannot play the game. So he tries to change the rules, or at least expose the current ones as a fraud.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Precisely, but men like Nash do. You don't know a man's perspective. So brilliant guys like Nash are pushed into the back of the gene pool, because he cannot play the game. So he tries to change the rules, or at least expose the current ones as a fraud.


The easiest and quickest way to do that is to not practice them. Once again that's HIS choice since no one is forcing him to do anything.

For someone so "anti-system" you're being contradictory to your own beliefs.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> The easiest and quickest way to do that is to not practice them. Once again that's HIS choice since no one is forcing him to do anything.
> 
> For someone so "anti-system" you're being contradictory to your own beliefs.


I really don't want to debate with you, you never touch my points. Look up Kantian ethics. Nobody makes choices like that. You are making very broad philosophical assumptions. I'll just leave you with Chalky White:


*

All a dream to begin with. Ain't nobody ever been free.*


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I really don't want to debate with you, you never touch my points. Look up Kantian ethics. Nobody makes choices like that. You are making very broad philosophical assumptions. I'll just leave you with Chalky White:
> 
> 
> *
> ...


I do touch them, you just never like my answers. That's on you. The whole point of Kantian ethics, since you clearly have no idea (the sheer irony is drowning me right now btw), is treating people as free individuals who are allowed to make their own choices.

The famous quote by Kant himself is this: "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means," which has completely and utterly screwed your argument now. So, yes, there's clearly nothing to say anymore.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> I do touch them, you just never like my answers. That's on you. The whole point of Kantian ethics, since you clearly have no idea (the sheer irony is drowning me right now btw), is treating people as free individuals who are allowed to make their own choices.
> 
> The famous quote by Kant himself is this: "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means," which has completely and utterly screwed your argument now. So, yes, there's clearly nothing to say anymore.


There is actually. Because a person moved by sex, is not a moral agent. Neither is anybody moved around by the machinery of the world. Or even his emotions and falsehoods. There is a higher intellectual realm that the machine cannot touch. Which Nash tried to reach. 

The world is machine. Kant is not. Kant would let 1,000 people die, and not feel guilty. Because shame does not affect him. The world does not. The values of society are irrelevant. Kant will always be Kant. Just like players will play. It is not their machine.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

lol at women giving this thread 3 star. 


What else is predictable?


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Most people crave more than just a hit-and-quit-hit type of thing, that's why most people consider promiscuity a ''crime''. Sure you may not agree with it, but respect the fact that some people are turned off by those with a high body count.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Laf said:


> Most people crave more than just a hit-and-quit-hit type of thing, that's why most people consider promiscuity a ''crime''. Sure you may not agree with it, but respect the fact that some people are turned off by those with a high body count.


it looks like another person is perpetuating the strawman that anyone pursuing sex is looking for a series of shallow one night stands with zero passion or connection


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> it looks like another person is perpetuating the strawman that anyone pursuing sex is looking for a series of shallow one night stands with zero passion or connection


Straw man ? LOL.
According to your O.P, you seem have a problem with people that are not ok with having many sexual encounters. I responded to that by saying that most people want more than just a hit-and-quit it ( because sexuality is generally strongly linked with romantic attraction) ; Also, promiscuity IS shallow. I don't know where I read it again, but sex generally has the ability to tie you down to someone emotionally. So if promiscuity was really a passionate act, that would be very draining for the person, and hard to mentally sustain.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Laf said:


> Straw man ? LOL.
> According to your O.P, you seem have a problem with people that are not ok with having many sexual encounters. I responded to that by saying that most people want more than just a hit-and-quit it ( because sexuality is generally strongly linked with romantic attraction) ; Also, promiscuity IS shallow. I don't know where I read it again, but sex generally has the ability to tie you down to someone emotionally. So if promiscuity was really a passionate act, that would be very draining for the person, and hard to mentally sustain.


...you're still strawman-ing
there is a very wide spectrum between putting in zero effort to get sex and being a shallow (male or female) slut who goes after "conquests" specifically to wrack up notches on their belt. 

I am one of the most romantic people I know. when I find the perfect guy, I want to cuddle all night, spoon while we watch movies, stay in a romantic cottage in northern Europe during vacation and share all my secrets with him, but until that time...a man has needs, and it's stupid to assume that pursuing sex is always the same as sleezy attempts to fuck strangers in bathrooms and use them like condoms.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> ...you're still strawman-ing
> there is a very wide spectrum between putting in zero effort to get sex and being a shallow (male or female) slut who goes after "conquests" specifically to wrack up notches on their belt.
> 
> I am one of the most romantic people I know. when I find the perfect guy, I want to cuddle all night, spoon while we watch movies, stay in a romantic cottage in northern Europe during vacation and share all my secrets with him, but until that time...a man has needs, and it's stupid to assume that pursuing sex is always the same as sleezy attempts to fuck strangers in bathrooms and use them like condoms.


Straw-man'ing what exactly ? You seem to be lost within your own question. The efforts you put into sex have nothing to do with how connected you are to the person. There are some girls that would swear their love for their partner to death, yet can't seem to really link when it comes to sex.

Also, there are two things wrong with your second paragraph: 1. You are using personal experience to propel your point. 2. Even if we could go according to your personal experience, we'd still have to doubt the accuracy of your words.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Laf said:


> Straw-man'ing what exactly ?.


me: "society shouldn't shame people for pursuing sex"
you: "most people want more than just hit and quit"
you have an overly black/white perspective on trying to get sex (not to mention cynical)




> You seem to be lost within your own question. *The efforts you put into sex have nothing to do with how connected you are to the person.* There are some girls that would swear their love for their partner to death, yet can't seem to really link when it comes to sex


there's your problematic assumption right there. good seduction is about getting closer to someone, unlocking their passion and feeling and satisfying their emotional needs. it is an intense bonding experience, not an animalistic fuck. 



> Also, there are two things wrong with your second paragraph: 1. You are using personal experience to propel your point.


yes, I am, because I am example of someone who wants sex AND romance. 



> 2. Even if we could go according to your personal experience, we'd still have to doubt the accuracy of your words.


what exactly are you doubting? are you saying I'm just making this up?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Laf said:


> Straw man ? LOL.
> According to your O.P, you seem have a problem with people that are not ok with having many sexual encounters. I responded to that by saying that most people want more than just a hit-and-quit it ( because sexuality is generally strongly linked with romantic attraction) ; Also, *promiscuity IS shallow.* I don't know where I read it again, but sex generally has the ability to tie you down to someone emotionally. So if promiscuity was really a passionate act, that would be very draining for the person, and hard to mentally sustain.


How so?

The definition of shallow (according to the top 1 definition on Urban Dictionary); 

"_*Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever.*_"

You seem to be implying that having multiple sexual partners renders you unable to factor in their personality in your judgement.

How does one correlate with the other?

If I had sex with 10 of my childhood friends (which implies that I have known them for a very long time and interacted with them countless times, thus their personality matters), within a time span of a month, would I be shallow?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

f8alz28 said:


> You can see why men are seen as objectifying and (I don't like this word) manipulative by reading the recent comments. Because they try to be. But I'm not convinced it's works for them. What society thinks of an individual is irrelevant as you say. But, because of certain individuals, society views entire groups as sleaze balls. Regarding your thread, I agree with the conclusion, but dissent on certain premises.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Don't bother responding" says it all. You don't tie up your arguments like that. You are running away while punching.

I did not create the world I was born into, and the social contract is a fraud. I would be happy to get deeper. Evolution. I know that well. I got it all covered. As Doc Holliday said, "I am your Huckleberry. Say when."


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> me: "society shouldn't shame people for pursuing sex"
> you: "most people want more than just hit and quit"
> you have an overly black/white perspective on trying to get sex (not to mention cynical)


Why are you not taking in account the details I add to what I say ? Because it actually gives further elaboration to what I'm saying. Most people strongly link sexuality with emotional attraction because it's impossible (or extremely hard) to be emotionally genuine in a relationship when you're promiscuous. 




> there's your problematic assumption right there. good seduction is about getting closer to someone, unlocking their passion and feeling and satisfying their emotional needs. it is an intense bonding experience, not an animalistic fuck.


Do sociopath also fit this analysis of yours ? Good seduction is about knowing the other person, knowing what to do to get a certain thing. You can achieve both while maintaining emotional distance. 




> yes, I am, because I am example of someone who wants sex AND romance.


1. Like I said earlier, your words are to be taken with caution, as their accuracy depends heavily on your level of self-awareness. 2. Even if what you said about yourself was true, that still wouldn't be sufficient to illustrate your point, as you are using an exceptional case to propel your words.




> what exactly are you doubting? are you saying I'm just making this up?


No, i'm not saying that you made that up. I'm just saying that I can't take that at face value because I don't know how self-aware you are. A bit like people who are constantly on the defensive, yet will swear that they are very confident, and self-assured.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Eska said:


> How so?
> 
> The definition of shallow (according to the top 1 definition on Urban Dictionary);
> 
> ...


That is one definition of the term. Shallow also means lacking depth. That's what I was referring to when using it here. Promiscuous people are shallow in that they can't connect with other people on a good enough level that would be considered genuine.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Laf said:


> Why are you not taking in account the details I add to what I say?


I am taking them into account. you are the one who is over simplifying here, not me.



> Because it actually gives further elaboration to what I'm saying. Most people strongly link sexuality with emotional attraction because it's impossible to be emotionally genuine in a relationship when you're promiscuous.


this makes a few faulty assumptions:
1) it is impossible to have a deep connection outside of a relationship
2) all successful relationships are monogamous
3) people who pursue sex are not also pursuing a relationship with the same person (it's only logical to keep a goose that lays golden eggs)



> Do sociopath also fit this analysis of yours ? Good seduction is about knowing the other person, knowing what to do to get a certain thing. You can achieve both while maintaining emotional distance.


you can, but that doesn't mean you have to. once again, your understanding of seduction is extremely one sided



> 1. Like I said earlier, your words are to be taken with caution, as their accuracy depends heavily on your level of self-awareness. No, i'm not saying that you made that up. I'm just saying that I can't take that at face value because I don't know how self-aware you are. A bit like people who are constantly on the defensive, yet will swear that they are very confident, and self-assured.


there is something to be said of questioning people's self awareness, but what reason would I have to pretend that I am romantic? if I weren't, I wouldn't care (seriously though, I am an Sx dom ENFP. romance is in my blood mate). there is a fine line between skepticism and dismissiveness. you're flirting with it



> 2. Even if what you said about yourself was true, that still wouldn't be sufficient to illustrate your point, as you are using an exceptional case to propel your words.


but it's NOT exceptional. everyone needs intimacy, and most people need sexual gratification, so why would it be the "exception" to pursue both rather than one or the other?


my initial analysis of your argument was incorrect though. the main problem with your argument is not strawman, but single cause fallacy


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Laf said:


> That is one definition of the term. Shallow also means lacking depth. That's what I was referring to when using it here. Promiscuous people are shallow in that they can't connect with other people on a good enough level that would be considered genuine.


I disagree.

Promiscuity and shallowness are not exclusives.

Refer to the example of having sex with 10 of my childhood friends.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I am taking them into account. you are the one who is over simplifying here, not me.


Considering that I'm answering all your points, I don't think so. But this is beside the argument, so I'm not willing to give more time into this.




> this makes a few faulty assumptions:
> 1) it is impossible to have a deep connection outside of a relationship
> 2) all successful relationships are monogamous
> 3) people who pursue sex are not also pursuing a relationship with the same person (it's only logical to keep a goose that lays golden eggs)


1. I never implied that. But relationships are a very particular ball game of their own.
2. Neither did I imply this. I feel like we are shifting gears a lot here. Promiscuous people can be in monogamous relationships. Monogamy isn't defined by emotional ingenuity, but by commitment to only a certain partner, at a certain point of time.

3. Or this. You can pursue sex, and relationships at the same time. That's totally possible, and independent of your level of sexual restriction.



> you can, but that doesn't mean you have to. once again, your understanding of seduction is extremely one sided


I don't know what you mean by being one sided. I just showed you that your ability to seduce has nothing to do with how emotionally genuine you are.




> there is something to be said of questioning people's self awareness, but what reason would I have to pretend that I am romantic? if I weren't, I wouldn't care (seriously though, I am an Sx dom ENFP. romance is in my blood mate). there is a fine line between skepticism and dismissiveness. you're flirting with it


What reason would the extremely defensive person have for saying that they are extremely self-assured, and confident when that's not the case ?




> but it's NOT exceptional.


How is it not exceptional ? Like I said, there are researches showing that it's impossible to be promiscuous and emotionally genuine at the same time.



> everyone needs intimacy, and most people need sexual gratification, so why would it be the "exception" to pursue both rather than one or the other?


You lost me there. I never said that it was impossible to pursue sexual and intimacy at the same time. The problem doesn't lie with what you want (are pursuing); but rather with what you can give.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Eska said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Promiscuity and shallowness are not exclusives.
> 
> Refer to the example of having sex with 10 of my childhood friends.


I never implied that they were exclusives. And what do you mean by ''exclusives'' ? Mutually exclusive or ... ?



> If I had sex with 10 of my childhood friends (which implies that I have known them for a very long time and interacted with them countless times, thus their personality matters), within a time span of a month, would I be shallow?


I can't answer this, since we are not arguing from the same definition of the term.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Laf said:


> I never implied that they were exclusives. And what do you mean by ''exclusives'' ? Mutually exclusive or ... ?


You said that "promiscuity is shallow".

You seem to be implying that promiscuity necessarily implies that shallowness is involved.



> I can't answer this, since we are not arguing from the same definition of the term.


I think we are.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Eska said:


> You said that "promiscuity is shallow".
> 
> You seem to be implying that promiscuity necessarily implies that shallowness is involved.


Yes, It's shallow, but not shallow in a sense that you don't factor personality when getting in a relationship with someone; shallow in that you lack a great deal of emotional ingenuity.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Laf said:


> Yes, It's shallow, but not shallow in a sense that you don't factor personality when getting in a relationship with someone; shallow in that you lack a great deal of emotional ingenuity.


How much you consider to be "emotional ingenuity", is subjective.


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Eska said:


> How much you consider to be "emotional ingenuity", is subjective.


Subjective, but I think many of us have a rather similar (or almost similar) idea of what could be considered emotional ingenuity. 

PS: Such question is what I have been interested in lately. How do we quantify such things ? "Overly sensitive'' ''mean'' ''cold'' ...etc


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Laf said:


> Subjective, but I think many of us have a rather similar (or almost similar) idea of what could be considered emotional ingenuity.
> 
> PS: Such question is what I have been interested in lately. How do we quantify such things ? "Overly sensitive'' ''mean'' ''cold'' ...etc


I believe that culture and morals are what quantify those.

What may seem acceptable to someone, may be crossing the line for the other.


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

Hey guys, I started a new thread. check it out- http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/395538-sexy-would-you-rather-game.html


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Guh. Sex is sex. Why humans can't realize there's nothing wrong with exploring sexuality is beyond me. There's far too many taboos surrounding it, on both sexes. Shame.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Laf
I think this would be easier if we just started over, so I'm going to list my main arguments and you tell me which ones you disagree with and why
1) there is nothing wrong with pursuing sex in and of itself (there _are_ however, less that reputable ways to go about it, and those deserve to be criticized)
2) there are many types of people who pursue sex, ranging from people wanting a shallow 1-night stand to divorced 35 year olds who haven't had sex in three years, to virgins who are trying to woo the love whom they want to spend the rest of their life with, to normal men and women who are just lonely. 
3) Sex and emotional intimacy are both human needs, so the idea that it's an either/or thing and that someone can't be pursuing both at the same time is incredibly fallacious. 
4) Society's judging of any sort of sexual pursuit _does_ have the ability to make people's lives much more frustrating and lonely. this is why the PUA community has seen such a boom recently**, because our views on male/female relations have become almost Victorian in many regards, and getting our basic needs for sex and intimacy met has become incredibly difficult. 

**in regards to the PUA Community, it's not there intentions I take issue with as much as their tactics (there are also a number of subcultures within PUA, a few of which have my full support)


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

That would really suck if it was a crime.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Laf
> I think this would be easier if we just started over, so I'm going to list my main arguments and you tell me which ones you disagree with and why
> 1) there is nothing wrong with pursuing sex in and of itself (there _are_ however, less that reputable ways to go about it, and those deserve to be criticized)
> 2) there are many types of people who pursue sex, ranging from people wanting a shallow 1-night stand to divorced 35 year olds who haven't had sex in three years, to virgins who are trying to woo the love whom they want to spend the rest of their life with, to normal men and women who are just lonely.
> ...


Sure there's nothing wrong with sex, but like I said (I hope I did) it is considered a "crime" for many, because emotional needs are often linked up with sexual needs: I want a partner because I want to feel deeply about someone, and have it returned. The sex will follow. My sexual needs can take the backseat, while I'm looking for that special one; furthermore, studies showed that it's impossible (or extremely) hard for a promiscuous person to ''give enough'' emotionally wise, which makes many people keep away even further from those who practice promiscuity.
Also, how is being promiscuous lonely ? Where do you live ? (This is not antagonizing btw, I'm just very surprised).


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know that. I have never had this much trouble communicating with somebody on this forum. I know I am hard to understand, but I can usually get a little through to most. I am just going to walk away. This also shows why Keirsey temperaments are wrong btw. I know I cannot communicate to NFP.


The only reason you have trouble communicating with me is because you don't know how to accept being wrong. That's not my fault or problem, that's all on you bud.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Eska said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes it is, I have heard orgasms referred to as "_le petit mort_" or little death but honestly, the only time I've connected the two concepts was when I read Freud.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

The fowl is strong throughout this one just don't care anymore if **** sapien sapiens to our current generation wanna be ignorant to sex or just weird about it for no decent reason other then to make it worse on others or easier on there part because there lazy so be it , please don't associate me within that group.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> The fowl is strong throughout this one just don't care anymore if **** sapien sapiens to our current generation wanna be ignorant to sex or just weird about it for no decent reason other then to make it worse on others or easier on there part because there lazy so be it , please don't associate me within that group.


The bird is strong ...?


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> The bird is strong ...?


lol The fowl it was a mundane non direct insult.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> lol The fowl it was a mundane non direct insult.


I wasn't sure if you meant "fowl" (bird) or "foul" (disgusting).


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

The metaphorical fowl that means foul.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Laf said:


> Sure there's nothing wrong with sex, but like I said (I hope I did) it is considered a "crime" for many, because emotional needs are often linked up with sexual needs: I want a partner because I want to feel deeply about someone, and have it returned. The sex will follow. My sexual needs can take the backseat, while I'm looking for that special one


maybe they "can" take a backseat, but it doesn't mean they need to (and I'm not sure mine could in the first place, because I have the lust of a tigress in heat). it seems foolish to think it's so either/or



> furthermore, studies showed that it's impossible (or extremely) hard for a promiscuous person to ''give enough'' emotionally wise, which makes many people keep away even further from those who practice promiscuity.
> Also, how is being promiscuous lonely ? Where do you live ? (This is not antagonizing btw, I'm just very surprised).


I would like to see these studies 
as for myself, I am a gay man living in Kansas in the United States (about to move to Chicago =P). as to what I'm looking for 
- sex
- cuddling
- a relationship

when I meet someone I have interest in, I get to know them, get a feel for what they are looking for and see if it matches up with what I want. if they just want sex, that's fine (as long as it's good sex). if they want to be friends with benefits, cool. what I'm REALLY looking for is the love of my life whom I can make passionate love to on a regular basis, but until then, I'm going going to starve just because the restaurant is out of caviar


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

xXxRosexXx said:


> The metaphorical fowl that means foul.


good to see you switched to INFP. I was like "ISFJ? srsly?  "


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

It makes more sense INFP are like the inbetweeners to ISFJ and INTP an INFJ  .


Yes very much suck at socializing <3 lol.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

humans have emotions, and not just pure animal instincts =p. we are not animal like at all. there is no wrong in wanting sex, but lets not pursuit sex as its the only thing that's important =]. for me love, and closeness is a lot more important =]

FP type individual are more open to casual encounters =p. FJ types are much less open to it


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> maybe they "can" take a backseat, but it doesn't mean they need to (and I'm not sure mine could in the first place, because I have the lust of a tigress in heat). it seems foolish to think it's so either/or
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will look them up ( I hope I will, seriously I need to make a mention of this from now on every time I get in a debate with someone. My procrastination will make me disappear out of the blue and never come back). As for you living in Kansas, are they not as ok with ''hook up culture'' as the rest of 'murica ?


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

You're mixing up terms.

It's considered bad when men puruse sex on the street with women they don't know, because they are forcing that intention on women who are not interested.

Those same moves are very different at a club or a bar.

So as you see pursuing sex is not bad, but trying to force what YOU desire from a preson who does not desire it is bad. 

That's like saying pursuing friendship is bad because people are weirded out when you just invite yourself over to their house and you're strangers on the street, you just walked into their car. I know it's not a like comparion, give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm just trying to illustrate that it's about social signaling backa nd froth that makes friends and makes sex happen and it's only considered likable when it's mutually signaled to give the go-ahead. When someone just comes at you with their intention it's considered rude/off-putting to the other person. Yes your desire for sex or friendship is natural but that is not my problem, I am living my life in my own space, it is not my responsibility to have to respond to your needs. On top of that, think of the men who pursue sex in public spaces who don't take both "implicit" no signals (like no eye contact) OR explicit "I'm not interested" signals and think I'll keep trying.. imagine how frustrating and invasive that is... do you think the people who are irritated by this are mad because the guy wants sex? NO they're mad because they don't care they these men don't care that THEY don't-- so why would they want ot have sex or even talk to someone who doesn't respect what THEY want? No one likes that.


Women being punished for pursuing sex does not always happen but when it does I think it's out of sexism/desire to control or demean the woman involved.


----------



## CherishYourHeart (Nov 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) men who pursue sex are seen as manipulative and/or "objectifying"
> 2) women who pursue sex are seen as sluts and, potentially, gold diggers
> 
> ....can we _please_ get over these retarded beliefs and just accept that craving sex is, you know, _part of being human_? you could argue "what society thinks of you is irrelevant as long as you accept yourself", and, honestly, 90% of the time, I would be right behind you, but the truth of this issue is that what society thinks matters a lot when it makes getting laid 10X more difficult.



Also, why is that women are being seen as "used for sex" when they encounter a NSA encounter? If two people are consenting, what's the problem?


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Pretty unrelated to the topic, but one of these days I'd like to see a statistical analysis of human sexual interactions. I'm always amazed online (with this thread being an example) how the strong majority of men seem to think sex is something very difficult to get while the strong majority of women seem to think that sex is easy to get. For every woman that is having sex there has to be a man having sex with her so this result always seems a little paradoxical. I wonder if it's just that all the women are having sex with a certain small percentage of men, or if it's just that only the lowest-tier men end up online, or if it's purely just perception and the men really are getting as much sex as the women but just think they had to work so much harder to get it.


There are men who think sex is easy to get and women who think sex is hard to get. Just because a small segment of the population who is male gets online to complain about sex being hard to get doesn't mean they represent all males. I happen to think part of this is because the kind of guy who has a hard time getting laid is also the kind of guy who will think about it in terms of something being owed him and complain about it online.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Yeah you say that,
But it's not that simple when someone firstly lies about their intentions,
As to they want to be with you,
And when half the time they're creepy as hell when they hit on you.

Most of the time,
People are rejected because someone is made to feel like the only value they have to someone else,
Is their physical body.

People who constantly look for sex should be big boys and girls,
And take the consequences of their actions,
*If* you are constantly on the prowl for it,
You will be labelled quite a few things,
Especially the methods used to get laid by most people.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

sogood said:


> You're mixing up terms.
> 
> It's considered bad when men puruse sex on the street with women they don't know, because they are forcing that intention on women who are not interested.
> 
> ...


you are the one mixing up terms here. asking a woman out for coffee or making an approach in a bar are not "forcing your desires on her" (that would be, yanno, _rape_). being forceful is when you pursue further after being obviously rejected. 
PS: most people don't just straight up ask for sex from people they don't know. that's weird as hell :tongue:


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

I'm just fucking sick to shit about sexual ignorance also being lonely, sex is the most beautiful expression ever known how people see it as gross or weird disgusts me beyond imagination.


----------



## Morfy (Dec 3, 2013)

xXxRosexXx said:


> I'm just fucking sick to shit about sexual ignorance also being lonely, sex is the most beautiful expression ever known how people see it as gross or weird disgusts me beyond imagination.


I agree with you =)
I want to make love to my boyfriend so badly :blushed:


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Ayrılık;12741474 said:


> And take the consequences of their actions,
> *If* you are constantly on the prowl for it,
> You will be labelled quite a few things,
> Especially the methods used to get laid by most people.


Are you for or against slut shaming?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

xXxRosexXx said:


> I'm just fucking sick to shit about sexual ignorance also being lonely, sex is the most beautiful expression ever known how people see it as gross or weird disgusts me beyond imagination.


Well, actually sex kind of is a little gross when you think about it. I mean, people do pee from those places and then we put our mouths on them. Hell, some people even like putting stuff where the poop comes out of. :frustrating:

I mostly just like cuddling.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Well, actually sex kind of is a little gross when you think about it. I mean, people do pee from those places and then we put our mouths on them. Hell, some people even like putting stuff where the poop comes out of. :frustrating:
> 
> I mostly just like cuddling.


There's no expression towards how I feel about that lol.. so I shall not comment


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> I'm just fucking sick to shit about sexual ignorance also being lonely, sex is the most beautiful expression ever known how people see it as gross or weird disgusts me beyond imagination.


Why can't somebody think sex is gross, or wrong, or immoral, whatever? People should be entitled to their opinions. I feel like we went through this age of societal sexual repression, and now it's swinging hard the other way. I am not saying it is worse necessarily, but the problem in both situations seems to be that there is one opinion on sex that you are supposed to have. Either it is totally natural and the most amazing, spiritual experience in the world and we should all be having it all the time, or it's bad and wrong and we should all be abstinent until marriage and then only for procreation.

We need to stop shaming people for how they feel about sex. Some people just don't agree on how we should approach the topic, and that should be respected. I get a little tired of people throwing terms like 'prude' and 'repressed' at people who just aren't as open or public about their sexuality. Maybe they like it that way.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Why can't somebody think sex is gross, or wrong, or immoral, whatever? People should be entitled to their opinions. I feel like we went through this age of societal sexual repression, and now it's swinging hard the other way. I am not saying it is worse necessarily, but the problem in both situations seems to be that there is one opinion on sex that you are supposed to have. Either it is totally natural and the most amazing, spiritual experience in the world and we should all be having it all the time, or it's bad and wrong and we should all be abstinent until marriage and then only for procreation.
> 
> We need to stop shaming people for how they feel about sex. Some people just don't agree on how we should approach the topic, and that should be respected. I get a little tired of people throwing terms like 'prude' and 'repressed' at people who just aren't as open or public about their sexuality. Maybe they like it that way.



I'm shutting out a lot my seveer hatred towards it "just so you know" lol.

He's get a very nice carming response.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't like sex. It's good if both people want to have it but it's the most vile crime in all of history if one person doesn't want it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

xXxRosexXx said:


> I'm shutting out a lot my seveer hatred towards it "just so you know" lol.
> 
> He's get a very nice carming response.


I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

xXxRosexXx said:


> I'm just fucking sick to shit about sexual ignorance also being lonely, sex is the most beautiful expression ever known how people see it as gross or weird disgusts me beyond imagination.


If you think sex can solve loneliness you are sorely mistaken. Using sex to solve loneliness is like using salt water to solve dehydration. It might feel good for a few minutes, but it's just going to leave you even worse off than before. Sex is a saccharine sweetness that can never leave you satiated. Only love can can do that. :crying:


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

Love to me is the evil yet it's fun to feel, sex is the artform.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Love to me is the evil yet it's fun to feel, sex is the artform.


Well, these are matters of opinion and the point is simply that you should respect others who disagree with you on this point.


----------



## x_Rosa_x (Nov 4, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Well, these are matters of opinion and the point is simply that you should respect others who disagree with you on this point.



Whatever.


----------



## Bat (Jul 21, 2012)

Why, did someone make you feel like a criminal for pursuing sex?


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you are the one mixing up terms here. asking a woman out for coffee or making an approach in a bar are not "forcing your desires on her" (that would be, yanno, _rape_). being forceful is when you pursue further after being obviously rejected.
> PS: most people don't just straight up ask for sex from people they don't know. that's weird as hell :tongue:


But I specifically said approaching someone in a bar is appropriate and hitting on a stranger on the street isn't.


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> If you think sex can solve loneliness you are sorely mistaken. Using sex to solve loneliness is like using salt water to solve dehydration. It might feel good for a few minutes, but it's just going to leave you even worse off than before. Sex is a saccharine sweetness that can never leave you satiated. Only love can can do that. :crying:


I've never been able to have sex without feeling tenderness of some kind because otherwise there was no point, like hugging someone I don't like, so sex has luckily always been a way to express and feel love of some form as well as lust for me...


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

sogood said:


> But I specifically said approaching someone in a bar is appropriate and hitting on a stranger on the street isn't.


ok, but still, if anything, approaching someone at a bar is _less_ inappropriate. a bar is a social gathering place. people go there to meet new people and talk, so it should be more than acceptable to go up and introduce yourself in such a setting (I've done it countless times. nothing wrong with it if you're charming)


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Your being manipulative if your not being honest and upfront with your intentions.

You just have to respect a "no" and leave it at that.

Saying your a friend but secretly want sex is much more manipulative than being honest.


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> ok, but still, if anything, approaching someone at a bar is _less_ inappropriate. a bar is a social gathering place. people go there to meet new people and talk, so it should be more than acceptable to go up and introduce yourself in such a setting (I've done it countless times. nothing wrong with it if you're charming)


I am confused. I don't think approaching someone at a bar or a place designated for social interaction/meeting new people/potential dates is at all inappropriate. I think it is the place to do so. 

I said in my OP the reaction I've heard against men hitting on women is almost always A) strangers hitting on women in public like walking down the street, at work, or on public transporation or B) they are older/wrong age category for that woman C) don't take no for an answer, listen to her signals. But no one can fault a someone for trying to meet someone in the normal context to do so.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

sogood said:


> I am confused. I don't think approaching someone at a bar or a place designated for social interaction/meeting new people/potential dates is at all inappropriate. I think it is the place to do so.
> 
> I said in my OP the reaction I've heard against men hitting on women is almost always A) strangers hitting on women in public like walking down the street, at work, or on public transporation or B) they are older/wrong age category for that woman C) don't take no for an answer, listen to her signals. But no one can fault a someone for trying to meet someone in the normal context to do so.


fuck....
reread your post. I turn dyslexic when I'm tired. sorry about that :tongue:


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Bahburah said:


> Your being manipulative if your not being honest and upfront with your intentions.


Oh, there's always some amount of "game" involved IRL no matter where you stand on this issue. You're not going to get far going up to a girl and saying, "You look hot. I want to put my penis inside you." Even if that's clearly what you want you have to adhere to the socially accepted courting rituals first before you can ever expect to be successful in propositioning for sex.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

sogood said:


> I am confused. I don't think approaching someone at a bar or a place designated for social interaction/meeting new people/potential dates is at all inappropriate. I think it is the place to do so.
> 
> I said in my OP the reaction I've heard against men hitting on women is almost always A) strangers hitting on women in public like walking down the street, at work, or on public transporation or B) they are older/wrong age category for that woman C) don't take no for an answer, listen to her signals. But no one can fault a someone for trying to meet someone in the normal context to do so.


What's the "wrong" age category and who arbitrates what it is?

Why are those inappropriate places to meet someone? 

Your first complaint seems arbitrary, your second lacking reasoning to support it. I think the only person that should determine whether or not an interaction is appropriate or inappropriate are the people involved or in direct effect of the interaction.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Oh, there's always some amount of "game" involved IRL no matter where you stand on this issue. You're not going to get far going up to a girl and saying, "You look hot. I want to put my penis inside you." Even if that's clearly what you want you have to adhere to the socially accepted courting rituals first before you can ever expect to be successful in propositioning for sex.


Exactly.

This is the whole problem with this topic and stuff like this.

I do think you can still have "game" and be upfront though.
It's just more subtle.

If you have a real connection with someone that shares the same desire then it's really not needed though.



Honestly though... Woman generally don't know what they want until it's in front of them.
There nothing wrong with that, but it's just something to keep in mind.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Eska said:


> Are you for or against slut shaming?


Against it.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Oh, there's always some amount of "game" involved IRL no matter where you stand on this issue. You're not going to get far going up to a girl and saying, "You look hot. I want to put my penis inside you." Even if that's clearly what you want you have to adhere to the socially accepted courting rituals first before you can ever expect to be successful in propositioning for sex.


This is false. You don't have to adhere to any socially accepted courting ritual that involves "gaming," you just have to show some tact. If you tell a girl you just want to put your penis inside her, she will most rightly be put off more often than not because you have just objectified her. And she has probably been approached by many guys like that in the past so she'll be even more put off by your approach. If she doesn't want to be objectified then that's totally understandable. 

Perhaps you should learn some tact.


----------



## Random Person (Apr 30, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> Why can't somebody think sex is gross, or wrong, or immoral, whatever? People should be entitled to their opinions.
> ...
> We need to stop shaming people for how they feel about sex.


Entitled to their opinions... I hate that phrase, I really do. Very few people have an adequate understanding of it. It's true in the sense that a person holding some opinion does not justify punitive actions against that person. This is not the way it's understood, however. It's taken to mean, instead, that a belief merits respect merely by virtue of being held by somebody. It does not. Opinions that are contrary to fact are wrong, and ridiculous beliefs warrant ridicule.

Respecting people who are not open to and about sex would be totally fine. If they used such principles to guide their own lives I'd be the first to uphold their right to do so. But they don't. They don't say it's their way, but rather that it's *the *way. And then relentlessy bash other people into thinking and living the same way. People who hold certain opinions are simply unable to respect others - or even leave those others alone. And such attitudes, I believe, are an adequate basis to dismiss their views as bullshit.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Random Person:12776378 said:


> BlackDog said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't somebody think sex is gross, or wrong, or immoral, whatever? People should be entitled to their opinions.
> ...


So basically you are saying that differing opinions is fine, just so long as nobody pushes them on anybody else. Which is... exactly what I just said. 

Someones attitude does not make their views invalid. Someone can have a good attitude and be wrong, or a bad attitude and be right. 

Let me rephrase the sentiment for you then: People are entitled to their own opinions on personal value claims, up to the point it infringes on another's autonomy. People do not need to justify their personal feelings on a matter just because somebody disagrees. I for instance, don't generally care what other people do. If I think promiscuity is distasteful though, I owe nobody so much as an explanation for that. 

You don't think sexually liberated people push their views on others? By your logic, their opinion is also total bullshit.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> Why can't somebody think sex is gross, or wrong, or immoral, whatever? People should be entitled to their opinions. I feel like we went through this age of societal sexual repression, and now it's swinging hard the other way. I am not saying it is worse necessarily, but the problem in both situations seems to be that there is one opinion on sex that you are supposed to have. Either it is totally natural and the most amazing, spiritual experience in the world and we should all be having it all the time, or it's bad and wrong and we should all be abstinent until marriage and then only for procreation.
> 
> We need to stop shaming people for how they feel about sex. Some people just don't agree on how we should approach the topic, and that should be respected. I get a little tired of people throwing terms like 'prude' and 'repressed' at people who just aren't as open or public about their sexuality. Maybe they like it that way.


Although I see your point, I think the underlying question here is: Is there a certain mentality (or set of mentalities) that is objectively more healthy for an individual to have, concerning sexual matters?

Because if there is, then we have a standard to work toward and support. In other words, while pushing our beliefs on others would still be questionable at best, there would be a stronger basis for teaching things in a particular manner, especially with children.

Which may already be the case, to some extent (it's just not a subject I've researched heavily). 

In short: Shaming is never a good thing, but we have to be careful about saying that sex is a "just believe what you want to believe" matter, when certain versions of those beliefs may be harming children in the process, due to the way parental transfer of beliefs works.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

@LostFavor

How do we isolate and objectively measure which attitutdes about sexuality are healthiest?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> @_LostFavor_
> 
> How do we isolate and objectively measure which attitutdes about sexuality are healthiest?


Very carefully. :tongue:

I honestly don't know. Like I said, I haven't researched the topic heavily. There may be people who have already talked about this and made some progress on it. 

Off the top of my head, I would say the best source (or one of the best) would be to look at children and behavior patterns. Look at the history and and see how growing up with certain attitudes about sexuality might have affected their behavior in a pro-social or anti-social way. Impacted their confidence levels and ability to function in society.

Stuff like that.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

@LostFavor

I think it would be difficult to isolate sexual attitudes as a significant contributing factor. What kinds of behaviour would be considered normal or optimal, I wonder?

This also raises an interesting question. To what extent are parents allowed to instill their values in their children? Some people have called religious upbringing child abuse. Perhaps the idea of hell is frightening to children, but if the parent believes it is true, should they refrain from telling their children because socieyy thinks the children ought not to know?

It seems to me that data in such studies could be easily twisted to suit whatever the researchers desired. First we woulf have to agree on what desirable behaviour is, and then find an unbiased method of relating sexual attitudes to the behaviour. Not to mention, do we measure the benefit to the individual or the benefit to society? The two do not always line up.


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

-Alpha- said:


> What's the "wrong" age category and who arbitrates what it is?
> 
> Why are those inappropriate places to meet someone?
> 
> Your first complaint seems arbitrary, your second lacking reasoning to support it. I think the only person that should determine whether or not an interaction is appropriate or inappropriate are the people involved or in direct effect of the interaction.


I mean, if you can't figure out that people don't like being hit on by strangers who are 20 years older than them on the bus when their earbuds are in and they're pointedly looking away from that person, and you think the issue is the person who says "hey forcing your attention on someone who isn't interested is rude", then there's nothing I can say.

I am not saying that these categories are 100% fact in that in all situations and with all people it'll play out this way, of course it's a generalization, but most people find being hit on by strangers when they are just doing their daily life off-putting, and the more strong that person comes on the worse it is. Why? because that person is ignoring body language/social signals. I am not talking about two people making eye contact in public and some mutual signals being sent, I'm talking body turned away, no eye contact, walking down the street, and people who insist on making benign situations that have nothing to do with them a jungle of sexual evasion.

As for the wrong age category, I would ask oneself "What do I have to offer this person? If I am not of their social sphere/generation and general culture, if I am not as attractive as them/much older, and if I do not have a good job/a lot going for me, why am I presuming to think they're going ot be flattered that a 40 year old man is hitting on a cute young desk clerk" because in mypersonal experience and in the expeience of all my female friends and from what I've seen online, it's almost always someone who looks shifty/homeless/drug abusing/socially awkward in some way OR a guy 15-25 plus your age who hits on young women in public cold.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

xXxRosexXx said:


> Any person who is religious here is on my retard list and will be ignored "use your brains".




I guess you've never read _Summa Theologica_ then.



xXxRosexXx said:


> But apart from that wow the sexual ignorance here is disgusting , how dare you treat sex as a _fowl and taboo_ disgusting action..





See also the urban legend about the Perdue chicken billboard in Spanish 
"_It takes a hard man to get a chicken aroused_."

By the way, if you think that's what "choke the chicken" means...you're doing it wrong.




xXxRosexXx said:


> Sex as I've said many times now is more then just interaction it is an overlap through each other a art form between anatomy to anatomy externally and internally that is far greater and more beautiful then any religion could ever come close too.




_"...our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer 'No,' he might regard absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their carnal raptures don't bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing that excludes it."_


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Random Person said:


> Respecting people who are not open to and about sex would be totally fine. If they used such principles to guide their own lives I'd be the first to uphold their right to do so. But they don't. They don't say it's their way, but rather that it's *the *way. And then relentlessy bash other people into thinking and living the same way. People who hold certain opinions are simply unable to respect others - or even leave those others alone. And such attitudes, I believe, are an adequate basis to dismiss their views as bullshit.


Doesn't it seem incredibly hypocritical to you that you dismiss their views as "bull shit" while at the same time getting mad that they don't respect your views? Seems like you're just as close-minded as you claim those who disagree with you are.

Previously there was a quote about people who think sex is "gross" and I responded in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but to be a little more serious I'll just propose a few scenarios. I am a 29 year old man. If I go walking down the street and imagine a sexual encounter with each person I see how many are really going to seem "beautiful" to me? Maybe I first encounter another 30 year old man. Imagining a sexual encounter with this individual is "gross" because I am a heterosexual. Next I encounter a 70 year old woman and her 10 year old granddaughter. Both of these people are of the right gender, but both still disgust me to imagine in a sexual fashion because one is way too old and the other is way too young. Anyways you can go on and on with other attributes like height and weight etc. Point is, I think for most people there are only ~10% of the population who a hypothetical sexual situation would seem anything close to "beautiful". I would argue that the default case of the human condition is to view sex as "gross" (and let's be honest, objectively speaking it kind of is when you consider the parts of the body and what you are doing with them) and only in the case of a small minority of people where our sexual attraction overpowers our base disgust will we find anything "beautiful" about the act.

As for whether there is an objectively correct view on how sexual a person can be, obviously it depends on the individual. However from charts I have seen the general happiness of a person as a function of their number of sexual partners is usually an upside down "U" shaped curve. People who have never has sex are not very happy AND people who have had a large number of sexual partners are not very happy. The important factor (like in all things) is moderation. Also, people need to keep in mind that the way you feel about sex changes drastically as you age. When you are a teenager (at least for me as a boy) it seemed like the biggest deal in the world, but now that I am approaching 30 it seems like a pretty insignificant part of life. Especially "just" sex and not sex with a long term committed partner. The only absolute moral statement I would make about sex though is that if you are not in a long-term relationship you HAVE to use protection. The decision to bring a child into this world is probably the biggest decision a person can make and doing it because you couldn't keep your dick in your pants for the 10 minutes it would take to buy a condom is absolutely 100% morally unacceptable to the highest degree.


----------



## Random Person (Apr 30, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Doesn't it seem incredibly hypocritical to you that you dismiss their views as "bull shit" while at the same time getting mad that they don't respect your views? Seems like you're just as close-minded as you claim those who disagree with you are.


I believe that there's a difference between barging into other people's lives and preventing others from barging into yours. It's quite fair, methinks, to assume that a person who would barge into your life without a good reason did it for a bad reason. Logical, no?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Random Person said:


> I believe that there's a difference between barging into other people's lives and preventing others from barging into yours. It's quite fair, methinks, to assume that a person who would barge into your life without a good reason did it for a bad reason. Logical, no?


You didn't say anything about "barging into" someone's life before, but perhaps if someone has done that it IS for a good reason (IE: They want to help you) and you just don't want to accept it?


----------



## Random Person (Apr 30, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> You didn't say anything about "barging into" someone's life before...


Yes I did.


Random Person said:


> *And then relentlessy bash other people into thinking and living the same way.*





> ...but perhaps if someone has done that it IS for a good reason (IE: They want to help you) and you just don't want to accept it?


Wanting to help is not the same as being able to help, just as having good intentions is not the same as achieving good results. But even if someone's willing and able to help me in some way it doesn't justify infringing upon my freedom. Nobody is responcible for my actions but me. Therefore, insofar as I'm not hurting anyone but myself nobody has any right to get in my way. If someone wants to help they can do so by offering it.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

If people to bang each other just of the hell of it, it's not really my concern. If everyone's on board, then it's not manipulation. Leading someone on with sex in hopes of a relationship is manipulation. The truth is people manipulate each other to get what they want all the time and sometimes it is through sex even in romantic relationships. Lumping this type of behavior together with non-romantic and/or causal sex is idiotic.

This ideal of sex should be only pursued with a possibly of a long-term romantic relationship seems to be deeply rooted in many people's minds. And anyone who pursues sex without it is often looked down upon. I think this problem will subside if the media and the society stop equating sex, love and romance all together.


----------

