# Conflicted About "Hookup Culture"



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

"But the soda-fountain nostalgia of this answer quickly dissipated when I asked Tali and her peers a related question: Did they want the hookup culture to go away—might they prefer the mores of an earlier age, with formal dating and slightly more obvious rules? This question, each time, prompted a look of horror. Reform the culture, maybe, teach women to “advocate for themselves”—a phrase I heard many times—but end it? Never. Even one of the women who had initiated the Title IX complaint, Alexandra Brodsky, felt this way. “I would never come down on the hookup culture,” she said. “Plenty of women enjoy having casual sex.”"

Boys on the Side - Hanna Rosin - The Atlantic


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

I don't really care one way or another about hookup culture. It's not something that affects my life, and if anything it just puts a giant red sign that says "NO INTEGRITY" on the forehead of every person who is part of it, which is helpful in the ways of deciding whether or not someone is worth pursuing.

I'll probably receive some flack for saying that by people who think having sex with random people for pleasure is fine, and I respect their opinions. But at the end of the day I don't consider hedonism to be a particularly positive character trait.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> I don't really care one way or another about hookup culture. It's not something that affects my life, and if anything it just puts a giant red sign that says "NO INTEGRITY" on the forehead of every person who is part of it, which is helpful in the ways of deciding whether or not someone is worth pursuing.
> 
> I'll probably receive some flack for saying that by people who think having sex with random people for pleasure is fine, and I respect their opinions. But at the end of the day I don't consider hedonism to be a particularly positive character trait.


Well, don't we have a high opinion of ourselves?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> I'll probably receive some flack for saying that by people who think having sex with random people for pleasure is fine, and I respect their opinions. But at the end of the day I don't consider hedonism to be a particularly positive character trait.


 Its better than frigidity. There's absolutely no problem with hedonism or promiscuity.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> Well, don't we have a high opinion of ourselves?


Is that what it's called when a person doesn't have sex with just anyone for short lived self-fulfilment of a primal urge? I thought it was called self-respect.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Is that what it's called when a person doesn't have sex with just anyone for short lived self-fulfilment of a primal urge? I thought it was called self-respect.


 You clearly have some kind of sexual complex focused around self-respect. You should get that looked at.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> You clearly have some kind of sexual complex focused around self-respect. You should get that looked at.


Certainly anyone who has different views as you must have some sort of complex and needs psychological help.

It's funny how quick the personal attacks come rolling in when someone with unconventional views (for this board) voices an opinion. It's also a good indication of how insecure some people are.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm perfectly secure (about this.) When you really recognise and accept promiscuity as a thing and realise there really isn't a problem with it, you are opening the road to self-recognition and self-respect. Sexual self-respect is about respecting who you are and what you do, not conforming to exterior standards.

It's not an attack at all. The fact that you identify so closely your idea of self-respect with sex suggests you have some kind of issue centered around sex.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm perfectly secure (about this.) When you really recognise and accept promiscuity as a thing and realise there really isn't a problem with it, you are opening the road to self-recognition and self-respect. Sexual self-respect is about respecting who you are and what you do, not conforming to exterior standards.
> 
> It's not an attack at all. The fact that you identify so closely your idea of self-respect with sex suggests you have some kind of issue centered around sex.


No idea why but I can't help but think of a prostitute or stripper who separates the acts from their personality and defines self respect more by mirror reflection and 'off the job' personality.

At the same time it is only fair to note that promiscuity can also be a sign of underlying issues e.g. overindulgence or addictions, mental health issues like manic phase bipolar, self esteem problems, immaturity in anima/animus phases and even depression-endorphins 'self treatment'.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Prostitution can be healthy and involve a great deal of self-respect, or it can be horrendous and close to sex-slavery, depending on where it is, local culture, general economic development, and legislation. There is such a thing as sex worker pride, you know.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm perfectly secure (about this.)


Your personal attacks say otherwise. If that were true you would address my views, not me as a person, which you know nothing about. That's insecurity at its finest. 



Diphenhydramine said:


> When you really recognise and accept promiscuity as a thing and realise there really isn't a problem with it, you are opening the road to self-recognition and self-respect. Sexual self-respect is about respecting who you are and what you do, not conforming to exterior standards.
> 
> It's not an attack at all. The fact that you identify so closely your idea of self-respect with sex suggests you have some kind of issue centered around sex.


It has nothing to do with exterior standards. It has to do with personal standards. I consider sex to be a meaningful act that transcends mere primal urges. Without an emotional and intellectual connection the act is denigrated, and it says a lot about a person who engages in such acts. We are humans, after all. We're supposedly above other animals and so should our actions support this assumption.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Your personal attacks say otherwise. If that were true you would address my views, not me as a person, which you know nothing about. That's insecurity at its finest.


 No-o, I'm attacking your views as symbolic of the problem I outlined -- I don't make the judgment on you personally. 



SuburbanLurker said:


> It has nothing to do with exterior standards. It has to do with personal standards. I consider sex to be a meaningful act that transcends mere primal urges. We are humans, after all. We're supposedly above other animals and so should our actions support this assumption.


 You still have not shown that there is some connection between personal self-respect and promiscuity. There's nothing to suggest that 'transcending primal urges' is part of self-respect. On the other hand, acknowledging what you are is a short step to self-respect. Hating what you are leads in the reverse.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

@SuburbanLurker you should migrate these ideas to the Why is Sluttyness more hated thread.:happy:


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Is that what it's called when a person doesn't have sex with just anyone for short lived self-fulfilment of a primal urge? I thought it was called self-respect.


Self-respect is not having to put yourself on a pedestal in order to feel superior to those around you.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> No-o, I'm attacking your views as symbolic of the problem I outlined -- I don't make the judgment on you personally.
> 
> You still have not shown that there is some connection between personal self-respect and promiscuity. There's nothing to suggest that 'transcending primal urges' is part of self-respect. On the other hand, acknowledging what you are is a short step to self-respect. Hating what you are leads in the reverse.


What do you mean when you say ackknowledging what you are is a short step to self-respect? Do you think we should all go around sleeping with every person we want? You can still embrace yourself as a sexual being(if that's what you mean by acknowleding what you are?) while being in a monogamous relationship. It's quality over quantity.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> No-o, I'm attacking your views as symbolic of the problem I outlined -- I don't make the judgment on you personally.


Now you're just being ridiculous. Accusing someone of having a complex because their views differ from yours is the epitome of a personal judgement. Deny it all you want but no one's buying it.



Diphenhydramine said:


> You still have not shown that there is some connection between personal self-respect and promiscuity. There's nothing to suggest that 'transcending primal urges' is part of self-respect. On the other hand, acknowledging what you are is a short step to self-respect. Hating what you are leads in the reverse.


The connection between self-respect and acting above the animals is pretty clear in my mind.




android654 said:


> Self-respect is not having to put yourself on a pedestal in order to feel superior to those around you.


I'm not putting myself on a pedestal, I'm merely expressing my views. Don't like it, go to a forum where everyone agrees with each other.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

lek373 said:


> What do you mean when you say ackknowledging what you are is a short step to self-respect? Do you think we should all go around sleeping with every person we want? You can still embrace yourself as a sexual being(if that's what you mean by acknowleding what you are?) while being in a monogamous relationship. It's quality over quantity.


 I don't agree that everyone should be promiscuous, I only disagree that promiscuity is always a sign of a lack of self-respect.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Now you're just being ridiculous. Accusing someone of having a complex because their views differ from yours is the epitome of a personal judgement. Deny it all you want but no one's buying it.


 It's funny that you won't accept this and yet accuse me of insecurity. Oh, I guess now I am personally attacking you. But if you feel that what I have said is a personal attack then you are very easily attacked.



SuburbanLurker said:


> The connection between self-respect and acting above the animals is pretty clear in my mind.


 Just so long as you know you don't have the temporal authority to 'make it clear' in everyone else's, thanks.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

lek373 said:


> What do you mean when you say ackknowledging what you are is a short step to self-respect? Do you think we should all go around sleeping with every person we want? You can still embrace yourself as a sexual being(if that's what you mean by acknowleding what you are?) while being in a monogamous relationship. It's quality over quantity.


But the presumption that the only way to be "sexual being" is through monogamy and emotionally intertwined relationships is a pompous position to take. If it bears no ill intent, everyone's on the same page, and it brings nothing but satisfaction, then who are you to turn your nose up to others?

I can only see it as a bad thing if someone's being pressured into it, or being manipulated by another person. Other than that, where's the harm?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Being a sexual being and having self respect about your sexuality involves breaking out of the bonds of what is considered ordinary and acceptable sexual behaviour.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

oh and introversion/extroversion are genetically inherited. The gene is called RGS2 and is linked to shyness in children and introverison in adults.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

they say that doesn't translate into success with long-term relationships:"The manipulative 'It's all about me, so tell 'em anything to get sex' behavior is likely to have more short-term sexual success," Worthington said. "A strategy of building trust and intimacy and commitment is, by nature, going to take longer. Thus, the payoffs are likely to be greater in the short term. However, long-term relationship survival is likely to be strongly disadvantaged in people with dark triad traits."

Dark triad traits include extroversion, callousness, and impulsive behavior.​


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SlowPoke68 said:


> We all need to thank our ancestors for being members of the first camp. Back in the day you didn't have time for this "true love waits" horseshit before you died of typhus or took an arrow to the knee. And the people who fucked around the most had the most offspring. We are their descendants.
> 
> Or in other words: Your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma was a slut, and so was mine.


The 12th century barbarian, war lord and conqueror Genghis Khan has a descendant in 1 of ever 200 men alive today. Take that in for a second. 

Anyone who tries to deny that we're animals, and that our animal history has defined our present is trying to makea case for something that simply isn't there.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

lek373 said:


> No but I'll bet you the people who had more self control didn't die of typhus as young and took better care of their offspring. It is actually proven that extroverts are more likely to cheat and flirt, and introverts are more likely to be conscientious. I used to beat myself up for being such a loner/introvert but maybe the introvert does serve a purporse. My ancestors who weren't out fucking as many people as they could before they died maybe didn't get as much sex. But their long term mating strategy must have somewhat worked. Again quality over quantity. I bet this is why 85% of the world is extroverted and only 15% introverted.


Oddly I can't help but think of 'non combatant' males during world war I and II who could have been seen as either the shy retiring types or charmers that 'took advantage' of the partners of soldiers who had to stay at home during wartime (sounds very clever mating wise, just very callous)... or certain types of animals that do the same when alphas go hunting.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

I just posted this in another thread but I feel like it belongs here as well. 
Just becasue our more primitve ancestors were promiscuous or non monogamous does not mean we need to be. And just because people are animals does not mean we need to exhibit our animalistic behaviors. Promiscuity must have been important to our ancestors and that genetic drive towards promiscuity was an effective means of allowing the genes to get more versions of themselves into future generations. Knowing what your instinctive drives are and from where they originate is an important step in being able to exert conscious control over those drives. It seems like a lot of people are trying to defend what is "natural." But humans live in an artificial, unnatural world compared to our ape cousins where a code of ethics and standards of conduct overrule our hormone signals. If it weren't for humans larger brains and ability to assert conscious control over our primitive desires I doubt that NASA would be exploring Mars right now.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> The 12th century barbarian, war lord and conqueror Genghis Khan has a descendant in 1 of ever 200 men alive today. Take that in for a second.
> 
> Anyone who tries to deny that we're animals, and that our animal history has defined our present is trying to makea case for something that simply isn't there.


Yes, it's all about putting boots on the ground. No matter how well-cared for, the person with one or two immediate descendants is at a disadvantage in establishing a lineage to those with 10, especially if the kids are from different partners who might introduce helpful variations in genetics. 

Most of us are related through Niall of the Nine Hostages, Julius Caesar, or Ghengis Khan. None of whom were known for a shy, careful, retiring approach to sexuality based on deep intimate bonds.

However, as societies get more advanced, the Ri vs. Ro split gets more critical. That's why a selective approach to sexual liaisons is more valued now. Doesn't mean that the drive to fuck everything around us is gone, just that the outward cultural values have changed.


----------



## The Nightingale (Jul 22, 2012)

I think, a society where everybody can live their sexuality as they please to, is a desirable one.

I, personally, don't like casual sex. And yes, I have a completely healthy sex drive. But I simply don't enjoy sleeping with someone just for the sake of having intercourse. It just doesn't do it for me and it's not why I want to sleep with someone to begin with. I'd like to add, that I'm an extrovert, so although there might be a correlation, the theory is not completely maintainable and it's probably rather presumptuous if you tried to apply it in reality. 

Although, as I mentioned, I approve of sexual self-determination, I highly doubt that changing sexual partners frequently is something that would make you happy in the long run. 

Some of you referenced to nature in there argumentation and yes, humans are animals, but we are, in fact, a rather monogamous species. As someone has already mentioned: Quality before quantity is our preferred strategy, so more individuals of our species would tend to strive for few sexual partners and therefore less offspring. It all basic population ecology and evolution. Read it up!


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

lek373 said:


> It is actually proven that extroverts are more likely to cheat and flirt, and introverts are more likely to be conscientious.


I think that any differences in the rate of cheating between extraverts and introverts pertains to the willingness to be in social situations meeting people. An introvert might fantasize about cheating on their partner all day long and not give themselves the opportunity to do it, not out of some moral high ground but out of an unwillingness to spend copious amounts of time being social. I highly doubt that it has anything to do with conscientiousness and a lot to do with putting oneself out there. Since you said it's "proven" though, please cite your source.

I think all of the arguing in this thread is remarkably stupid. One of the wonders of the Western world is that we get to choose how we manifest our sexuality. We can choose to fuck a lot of people, or to be monogamous, or to fuck a lot of people until we find someone(s) that we want to be in a relationship with or any variation therein. If you don't like hooking up, don't hook up. If you don't like commitment, don't commit. Judging someone for their personal choices in sex partners just because they're not the choices that you would make says a lot more about _you_ than them. Have sexual partners that have similar views to yours, problem solved.

I also disagree with the idea that people who are not "sexually liberal" have lower sex drives. This is not the case at all. I think that this is a common misconception, really. Just because someone doesn't want to fuck a bunch of people doesn't mean that their sex drive is low, it just means that they don't want to fuck a bunch of people. My sex drive is a rager and I have no interest in casual sex these days, relationship sex or rather, the fantasy thereof as it stands right now, is much more fulfilling.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> The 12th century barbarian, war lord and conqueror Genghis Khan has a descendant in 1 of ever 200 men alive today. Take that in for a second.
> 
> Anyone who tries to deny that we're animals, and that our animal history has defined our present is trying to makea case for something that simply isn't there.


Genghis Khan was one of the biggest mass murderers and mass rapists in human history. He was responsible for killing off a larger percentage of the human population than any other mass murderer in history, including Stalin, Hitler and Mao. He would invade a city or town and have his soldiers kill _all_ the men without prejudice, and rape _all_ the women likewise. 

Is that really your argument? That we're all like _Genghis Khan_? How long until you start citing the fact that our primate ancestors flung shit at each other to justify flinging your own shit at people on the streets?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> Genghis Khan was one of the biggest mass murderers and mass rapists in human history. He was responsible for killing off a larger percentage of the human population than any other mass murderer in history, including Stalin, Hitler and Mao. He would invade a city or town and have his soldiers kill _all_ the men without prejudice, and rape _all_ the women likewise.
> 
> Is that really your argument? That we're all like _Genghis Khan_? How long until you start citing the fact that our primate ancestors flung shit at each other to justify flinging your own shit at people on the streets?


1) Is that really your argument, applying 21st century ethics to 12th century barbarism?

2) 1 in 200 isn't everyone

3) 900 years is much less than 2 million. so the events of the late 12th century is much more relevant than that of our first ancestors.

4) I was merely pointing out how sexual variation echoes throughout time.

5) Conquering of foreign lands has always been considered an historical marvel from an academic view point. Alexander The Great wasn't given that title for being awesome to all the foreigners he met on his travels.

6) If you're going to argue something that's supposed to be substantive, make sure there's some substance to be found.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> 1) Is that really your argument, applying 21st century ethics to 12th century barbarism?


As opposed to applying 12th century barbarism to 21st century ethics as you're doing?

The rest of your post makes no sense to me. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does Genghis Khan have to do with your personal morals and ethics if you're not trying to justify hedonism on the basis of his legacy as one of the most destructive humans who has ever lived?


----------



## CoakJoints (Feb 2, 2012)

I don't know if alot of these women have just deluded themselves inorder to support an ideology they have regarding being 'tough' or sexually liberated. I find it really interesting because I know alot of women who have no self respect and no self esteem who engage in casual sex because they are looking for some form of validation when secertly they actually want a relationship/companionship but don't have the self esteem to think they are worth it. In the end they just hirt themselves and as a man I kind of just laugh when I read this because I've been a counterparty to these hook ups many times in situations where the girl claimed that she just wanted casual sex and then ended up catching feelings and wanted mote then just to use each other. They basically just hurt themselves.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

android654 said:


> The 12th century barbarian, war lord and conqueror Genghis Khan has a descendant in 1 of ever 200 men alive today. Take that in for a second.
> 
> Anyone who tries to deny that we're animals, and that our animal history has defined our present is trying to makea case for something that simply isn't there.


While sexual promiscuity is a favored method in evolution, it does not mean that it is the only one. Selective mating becomes apparent when overpopulation, disease, and resource shortages exist. How did the "uglies" get here? Because they were smart enough to know how to obtain vital resources to sustain life when the seed-spreaders were at the local orgy-hole.Also, here is an article about how evolution begins to prefer humans not to be sexually promiscuous. It is also probably the reason why the seed-spreading Genghis Khan more than likely pissed lava:

Syphilis, the scourge of kings and dictators of old, is surging back | Mail Online 


I posted this in another thread but we are debating about the same shit so it belongs here too.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

CoakJoints said:


> I don't know if alot of these women have just deluded themselves inorder to support an ideology they have regarding being 'tough' or sexually liberated. I find it really interesting because I know alot of women who have no self respect and no self esteem who engage in casual sex because they are looking for some form of validation when secertly they actually want a relationship/companionship but don't have the self esteem to think they are worth it. In the end they just hirt themselves and as a man I kind of just laugh when I read this because I've been a counterparty to these hook ups many times in situations where the girl claimed that she just wanted casual sex and then ended up catching feelings and wanted mote then just to use each other. They basically just hurt themselves.


Couldn't agree more. This is why it bothers me when people have the mentality live and let live if they want to fuck whoever they want...then let them. It's not that simple. Sex is complicated and when feelings become involved people can get hurt. People are usually so picky about who they marry, or the houses they buy, but some people when it comes to sex just jump into it listening to their hormones without thinking it through and then get upset when they feel invalidated after it's over. If two people are going to have casual sex they better be absolutley sure they are both on the same page, and have the same expectations.


----------



## CoakJoints (Feb 2, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Prostitution can be healthy and involve a great deal of self-respect, or it can be horrendous and close to sex-slavery, depending on where it is, local culture, general economic development, and legislation. There is such a thing as sex worker pride, you know.


How many former sex workers do you know on a personal basis?

I know quite a few, from low track crackwhores to escorts, they all have been damaged emotionally by their experiences. The sex worker pride is often a sham justification/rationalisation of their situation.

Being proud of being Objectified, used and discarded is such a hollow concept.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

CoakJoints said:


> How many former sex workers do you know on a personal basis?
> 
> I know quite a few, from low track crackwhores to escorts, they all have been damaged emotionally by their experiences. The sex worker pride is often a sham justification/rationalisation of their situation.
> 
> Being proud of being Objectified, used and discarded is such a hollow concept.


Workers in general are often objectified. Society just treats certain professions differently, so certain people feel ostracized for having certain professions. 

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

If people want to hook up, they can hook up. I struggle to be proficient in 'hookup culture', but the times I have it has been exciting and definitely a good life experience. Speaking generally and perhaps harshly, I have found that people who disdain this 'hookup culture' are usually religious, a product of a past social-conservatism, or so unable to participate that their pride demands that they vilify it. It's all well and good, but I became a healthier and happier person when I stopped looking down on people who hook up a lot. 

And on some biological level, they could be right. Constant one-night-stands or FWBs can detract from someone's attractiveness as a long-term partner. Not to restate myself arrogantly from another thread, but I have a friend who hooked up with a couple of my close friends, then we did the deed as well. She wanted a relationship after which I just couldn't do, knowing about her past with my friends. How could I value someone as a long term partner who was willing to hook up with my friends as well? My first impression of her was someone who didn't want a long-term relationship, so that's where she stayed in my mind. It certainly doesn't make her less of a friend though.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Going backward is not going forward, so I don't approve of going back to the old days.

I realize some people would argue that hookup culture is "going backwards", but the greater thing to realize is that one of the REASONS things were the way they were was because they were INTENTIONALLY using culture to repress people's desires to increase cultural stability. I know this well; I am a master of Asian culture, and Asian culture STILL does this shit, and it's what leads to a lot of "Japan's so fucking weird" responses.

Furthermore, do realize that while it may appear that the hook-up culture is the dominant one, it only appears that way because it's glorified by media. It's only glorified by the media because people are immature, and immature people tend to not only subscribe to the hook-up culture, they're also the most loud, most attention-garnering, and I'd honestly say the most likely to get into politics and make laws.

Okay maybe that lost one was a stretch. Nevertheless, don't be beguiled into thinking that there aren't more traditional people out there who take their relationships slowly. It's just, people aren't culturally obligated to be non-sexual anymore, and so the reality is that, well, humans are basic creatures, and as basic creatures we like stimulating our nerve endings in our junk. Shit feels good bra.

Don't mistake this as a bad thing. While many bad things have become of it, you can't let the actions of jackasses affect your overall view.

So, yeah.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

ITT: Being picky about who you have intercourse with is indicative of a mental disorder of some sort.

Aaaand now we know!

Christ.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Promethea said:


> ITT: Being picky about who you have intercourse with is indicative of a mental disorder of some sort.
> 
> Aaaand now we know!
> 
> Christ.


Wait whaaaaaat? So if you're not a whore you have a mental disability?


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

what is ITT?


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

People defend this hook up culture garbage? What inadequate points of evidence to justify it aswell. Prostitution can be healthy? You lost your damn mind, actually you haven't but you will once the skin on your dick starts sliding off. Promiscuity is attractive and acceptable? What garbage excuse for human existence, we all deserve to die from a mass extinction tomorrow. Pull the plug on this species ASAP.

Anybody I've seen involved in this culture has these traits and/or problems;

Mental disorder, daddy/mommy issues, over privileged, rich or wealthy, animalistic, below average intelligence, has no valuable skills to contribute to the whole of the species, easily gives into to peer pressure, shallow.

Yes I am completely opinionated on this topic, not really but I'll say that for whatever reason. Now let me bask in the glory of my ignorance because I choose to opt out of petty animalistic mentality.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

lek373 said:


> Aww it's okay you don't have to get your panties all in bunch, we are all big girls.:dry: I am sure everyone debating on these forums has an agenda, are we not we all trying to prove why our point is more right.
> I actually read from multiple websites that said extroversion is a personality factor that can make a person more likely to cheat.
> 4. True. Researcher H. J. Instance's studies show that extroverts have more sexual partners and start their sexual adventures earlier in life.
> Who's Likely To Cheat* _*Personality factor*: _Extroversion* Effect:* Sensation-seeking and assertive, extroverts are driven to satisfy their sexual desires
> ...


I forgot you came on to the forum starting this thread in regards to your INTP husband: http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ing-there-something-wrong-me.html#post2587755

In your research, did you find out whether introverts or extroverts were more likely to watch porn?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Avian said:


> People defend this hook up culture garbage? What inadequate points of evidence to justify it aswell. Prostitution can be healthy? You lost your damn mind, actually you haven't but you will once the skin on your dick starts sliding off. Promiscuity is attractive and acceptable? What garbage excuse for human existence, we all deserve to die from a mass extinction tomorrow. Pull the plug on this species ASAP.
> 
> Anybody I've seen involved in this culture has these traits and/or problems;
> 
> ...


Let me guess, you're a "nice guy."


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> Let me guess, you're a "nice guy."


No, but if that will help you sleep at night then sure.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Avian said:


> No, but if that will help you sleep at night then sure.


Must be troubling to concern yourself with everyone's sex life to think that it somehow reflects upon you or the validity of humanity as a whole. It really makes you seem egalitarian, a prime example for others to follow. Don't worry, I sleep just fine. And some nights I don't sleep at all...


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> Must be troubling to concern yourself with everyone's sex life to think that it somehow reflects upon you or the validity of humanity as a whole. It really makes you seem egalitarian, a prime example for others to follow. Don't worry, I sleep just fine. And some nights I don't sleep at all...


It's neither of the things you said. I'm sick of hearing about people problems when they're involved in the twisted mentality of the hook up culture. So actually I'm not concerned with their sex lives. I'm surrounded by people who take part in it and all I hear is constant bickering. My sister can't find "the right guy" because she hooks up with different ones too often, I don't want to hear about the problems of her and everybody else's choices that have a negative result. If you want to be emotionally abused then have fun, I could literally care less as long as I don't have to hear it.

If you get an STD I don't want to hear about it, it's your fault, grow up and find some integrity. 

I had a friend who would hook up with girls constantly and then complain about it. On top of that, at the time I was smoking alot of weed and I had to share my bong, but never with him. I told him bluntly you gotta bring your own. Reason being he had horrible cold sores from sleeping around and having too much oral sex with multiple women. Cold sores is a form of herpes and I don't want that shit. You can suffer the consequences, I really don't care. Then he would call me an asshole because I didn't want herpes and that I wasn't involved in his sick, twisted hook up culture riddled with promiscuity.

Maybe in the future we will have a designated planet for those without integrity, you won't have to pay for a spaceship, we'll gladly get you out of here before you infect the rest of us.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Avian said:


> It's neither of the things you said. I'm sick of hearing about people problems when they're involved in the twisted mentality of the hook up culture. So actually I'm not concerned with their sex lives. I'm surrounded by people who take part in it and all I hear is constant bickering. My sister can't find "the right guy" because she hooks up with different ones too often, I don't want to hear about the problems of her and everybody else's choices that have a negative result. If you want to be emotionally abused then have fun, I could literally care less as long as I don't have to hear it.
> 
> If you get an STD I don't want to hear about it, it's your fault, grow up and find some integrity.
> 
> ...


You just lost all claims to integrity. You can't use an anecdote about you being a pothead and then claim moral superiority. You're nobody, no one to claim what people should and shouldn't be doing. You've proven yourself to be nothing more than a completely ignorant person who has a limited spectrum of experience.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> You just lost all claims to integrity. You can't use an anecdote about you being a pothead and then claim moral superiority. You're nobody, no one to claim what people should and shouldn't be doing.


You can have integrity smoking dope, and alot of it too. I held down a full time job, didnt sit around as much, etc. and still do and I haven't smoked in nearly a year. Smoking dope has nothing to do with integrity, do you buy into the propanda? 

And yes, I am a nobody and so are you. Also I can claim whatever I want about what people should or shouldn't do, I just can't make them do it and if they choose to do it, then it's not a defeat on my part. Something like hookup culture is just a piece of the puzzle of thoughtlessness in modern society. If somebody doesn't tell you then you're left to your own devices, and clearly that results in bickering and complaining about not finding the right relationship among other things that people try to get sympathy for.

You have your opinion and I have my own. After all you did say it was my claim, I'm not interested in forcing it on others. But I will speak my mind and not limit myself because you might think its offensive. This open minded attitutde concerning everything in existence is just people's scapegoat for their bullshit. So with that, in this particular case I'm being close minded and could care less.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Avian said:


> You can have integrity smoking dope, and alot of it too. I held down a full time job, didnt sit around as much, etc. and still do and I haven't smoked in nearly a year. Smoking dope has nothing to do with integrity, do you buy into the propanda?
> 
> And yes, I am a nobody and so are you. Also I can claim whatever I want about what people should or shouldn't do, I just can't make them do it and if they choose to do it, then it's not a defeat on my part. Something like hookup culture is just a piece of the puzzle of thoughtlessness in modern society. If somebody doesn't tell you then you're left to your own devices, and clearly that results in bickering and complaining about not finding the right relationship among other things that people try to get sympathy for.
> 
> You have your opinion and I have my own. After all you did say it was my claim, I'm not interested in forcing it on others. But I will speak my mind and not limit myself because you might think its offensive. This open minded attitutde concerning everything in existence is just people's scapegoat for their bullshit. So with that, in this particular case I'm being close minded and could care less.


You openly admitted to being an addict. By that logic alone you have no right to dictate what type of behavior holds integrity and what doesn't. You're not simply stating an opinion from your perspective, you're dictating morality and punishment for innocuous behavior. You are essentially proselytizing you're assumptions based on morality which has no empiricism and no basis beyond your limited scope. 

Oh, and alot isn't a word.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> You openly admitted to being an addict. By that logic alone you have no right to dictate what type of behavior holds integrity and what doesn't. You're not simply stating an opinion from your perspective, you're dictating morality and punishment for innocuous behavior. You are essentially proselytizing you're assumptions based on morality which has no empiricism and no basis beyond your limited scope.
> 
> Oh, and alot isn't a word.


Yea sucks when google chrome corrects my proper spelling, get over it.

I admitted I was an addict? I don't think I did but I'd like to see where I said that, otherwise I should go to an optometrist. I smoked a lot because. That's it. I was not addicted to it and you do not get addicted to it unless you have underlying mental problems. I simply smoked alot because I live a minimalist lifestyle and I am not needy about the latest fashion, the club scene and whatever else. So I smoked a lot. I quit periodically when I felt like it and resumed when I felt like it. Zero mental or physical side effects despite your intake of propaganda regarding marijuana. 

It was great too, I ran faster and overall better physical fitness, worked overtime, improved relationships around me, learned a lot about myself by meditating while high. No negative side affects, only positive. What can I say? Maybe I'm the exception. It could have gone bad if I shared my bong with my friend (not a friend anymore) who had herpes because of his choices, but nope it didn't happen.

And the "punishment" I suggested will be available in the future. Besides, doesn't it sound dreamy? A planet filled with promiscuous people, we'd actually be doing a favor through advanced technology.

Tell me, are you involved in this hook up culture?


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I think this is a broad and likely misguided assumption. Yes, there are people who disdain the hookup culture for religious reasons, however it's more they are opposed to pre-marital sex, birth control, etc, and they see the hookup culture as yet another fall of the socially conservative religiously-based society that they want to continue to uphold. However, no one here who has disagreed with the hookup culture has brought up anything related to society or religion. It's personal, and for most young people it's not being dictated by some religious organization. Those people are abstaining from any sexual activity at all.


So what I said about being a product of past social-conservatism is correct? That's basically what I got from this post. It may not be directly influenced by social conservatism, but when parents/tv/friends talk about how hooking up is wrong, a child will subconsciously pick up on that. I think we are basically saying the same thing. Hookup culture is no different in that both are fueled by social conditioning. 



> So you agree that sexual promiscuity, especially from females (lets talk about double standards here!!!), is a deterrent for long-term committed relationships. You even agree that you have dismissed a girl because she has slept around with your friends. Seems like she couldn't do the casual sex, but was constantly used by yourself and your friends, further destroying her because now you see her as unattractive as a long-term partner for what she has done, but all she really deep down wants is that long-term relationship.


She was not used. There was just a miscommunication between I and her. She didn't want any long term relationships with my three friends she hooked up with. She didn't try that with my friends. For some reason, after she and I hooked up a few times she said she wanted to be more serious. I don't know if it's because I'm not a party-animal like them, or I just seem a like relationship person, or whatever.

I didn't destroy her. She presented herself to us as someone who didn't want a long-term relationship! I don't think it is a double standard. If someone is less attracted to me for a relationship because I hooked up with her, so be it. How am I pushing a double standard? I don't mind if I seem less appealing for a relationship after hooking up with her. 

My personal opinions on what makes someone attractive is biological. I cannot consciously control it. As soon as I saw her hook up with my first friend (which I remember vividly), I stopped thinking about her in a relationship way. I did have a little crush on her beforehand, but after that I was attracted to her in a different way. I am not consciously trying to put down women, or be sexist, but my attraction to her was changed. Does that make any sense?



> What it boils down to at the end of the day is that female sexual promiscuity has both liberated us from a life where our sole purpose and goal in life is to marry and bear children, in favor of career advancement and education, but at the end of the day we have handed over the former to get the latter. Basically, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Because the truth is, even the most liberal, career-focused women, often still deep down have that desire to marry and raise a family. It's why things like infertility treatments are so popular. Women want both...they want their education and their career, putting off marriage and family until later in life. But the thing is, this hookup culture, the lifestyle that the media upholds as normal and popular, it ignores the lasting effects. On TV there is always the happy ending. In real life there are girls like your friend who have damaged themselves in this process.


She's not damaged, she can marry in her mid/late-twenties to someone. She just has to get used to not sleeping around with everyone's friends before she tries to build a long-term relationship with someone in that group. As long as she doesn't mention her crazy college years she's good to go.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Avian said:


> Yea sucks when google chrome corrects my proper spelling, get over it.
> 
> I admitted I was an addict? I don't think I did but I'd like to see where I said that, otherwise I should go to an optometrist. I smoked a lot because. That's it. I was not addicted to it and you do not get addicted to it unless you have underlying mental problems. I simply smoked alot because I live a minimalist lifestyle and I am not needy about the latest fashion, the club scene and whatever else. So I smoked a lot. I quit periodically when I felt like it and resumed when I felt like it. Zero mental or physical side effects despite your intake of propaganda regarding marijuana.
> 
> ...


You said, and said again, that you smoked a lot of weed. No matter what the substance is, substance abuse is an addiction. You can become addicted to hand sanitizers, and it literally does nothing, it would still make you an addict.

I like corrupting "innocent" people and it's more fun that way.

I do what i like and don't pretend I'm better than they are because they don't do as I do. Enough of an answer for you?


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> You said, and said again, that you smoked a lot of weed. No matter what the substance is, substance abuse is an addiction. You can become addicted to hand sanitizers, and it literally does nothing, it would still make you an addict.
> 
> I like corrupting "innocent" people and it's more fun that way.
> 
> I do what i like and don't pretend I'm better than they are because they don't do as I do. Enough of an answer for you?


Sure it's enough of an answer but why did you feel the need to respond to me in the first place? When I posted in this thread for the first time I didn't ask for your opinion on wether I thought I was a nice guy or not, which I am not. I just don't follow the "norm" and I have no problem with being misanthropic to social functions which I deem stupid. Is that simple enough for you?

And if you don't want to pretend like you're better then other people for doing what you don't do, maybe you should stop pretending to call those people out because they have a different opinion from your own. That tells me you think highly of your own self. That's the first thing you did in this thread;



android654 said:


> Well, don't we have a high opinion of ourselves?


So you have a high enough opinion of yourself to deem others of having a high opinion of themselves. I can see your innocence (/sarcasm).


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Avian said:


> Sure it's enough of an answer but why did you feel the need to respond to me in the first place? When I posted in this thread for the first time I didn't ask for your opinion on wether I thought I was a nice guy or not, which I am not. I just don't follow the "norm" and I have no problem with being misanthropic to social functions which I deem stupid. Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> And if you don't want to pretend like you're better then other people for doing what you don't do, maybe you should stop pretending to call those people out because they have a different opinion from your own. That tells me you think highly of your own self. That's the first thing you did in this thread;
> 
> ...


I just made fun of you, since you seemed just as ridiculous as the other pompous blowhards that are so mad about nothing. I never asked you a question.

Yet you and people like you are the only ones telling people what they should and should not be doing. Look at what other people have said. No one who does what they want has told people what they should and shouldn't be doing. It's only people like yourself who take it upon themselves to be arrogant enough to demean people for doing what they want. All I've said throughout this thread is that people should do as they please and no one should be made to feel ostracized because of it. You just have the added benefit of judging while engaging in another highly contested act that's largely looked down upon by major segments of society.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> I just made fun of you, since you seemed just as ridiculous as the other pompous blowhards that are so mad about nothing. I never asked you a question.


Yes you did, you were just being a smartass about it and you forgot the question mark:



android654 said:


> Let me guess, you're a "nice guy."





> Yet you and people like you are the only ones telling people what they should and should not be doing. Look at what other people have said.


It's unfortunate that we all have opinions, life goes on.



> No one who does what they want has told people what they should and shouldn't be doing. It's only people like yourself who take it upon themselves to be arrogant enough to demean people for doing what they want.


Sorry I'm not trapped in political paradigms, liberals or people with a liberal attitude will never win a debate with me. I don't do whatever I want, I have my own rules which keeps me spiritually healthy seperate from what society has implemented so far. As long as I don't do the things which I am against, I will always have opinions about things like "hook up culture". If I step into the culture tomorrow I'll delete my posts. 

This attitude that people should do whatever they want has not done very much for society, so I don't expect myself to take an air headed liberal stance like that. I guess 55 million abortions because women should do whatever they want is acceptable and that no one should have an opinion on that. Wrong.



> All I've said throughout this thread is that people should do as they please and no one should be made to feel ostracized because of it. You just have the added benefit of judging while engaging in another highly contested act that's largely looked down upon by major segments of society.


Yupp smoking marijuana is looked down upon because of false science, television propaganda, swaying of opinions using one sided arguments in school, and the FDA's outrageous classification of marijuana as a schedule one drug. All of which can be disproven and in fact is with new studies coming to the surface. Show me where the same is true of hook up culture, where has this culture been misconceived? Do people really find lasting relationships, that are healthy? Do they not have a chance to contract sexually transmitted diseases? 

And if people are going to do what they please, they shouldn't complain about it. As I told you that is the driving force behind my opinion against hook up culture. I've seen women get played by men with fake personas at clubs and bars, I've seen marriages destroyed and lots more. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are entitled to your own.

Would you like this conversation between me and you to end, since it's really going nowhere and just resulting in bashing of each others opinions with added personal attacks? Would that be the better moral high ground to take for both of us?


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

This thread gets even more amusing every time I open it.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Eerie said:


> This thread gets even more amusing every time I open it.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

pinkrasputin said:


> I forgot you came on to the forum starting this thread in regards to your INTP husband: http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ing-there-something-wrong-me.html#post2587755
> 
> In your research, did you find out whether introverts or extroverts were more likely to watch porn?


Wow, do you know of any other threads I have started? How much time do you spend on here woman? lol. your creepy. This whole site is really starting to creep me out.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> I forgot you came on to the forum starting this thread in regards to your INTP husband: http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ing-there-something-wrong-me.html#post2587755
> 
> In your research, did you find out whether introverts or extroverts were more likely to watch porn?


This is actually a valid point. Here you have someone who denies sexual promiscuity to be natural, when she knows someone who indulges in quite a bit of pornography. What is pornography if not promiscuity without the real world application and repercussions of the act?


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

android654 said:


> This is actually a valid point. Here you have someone who denies sexual promiscuity to be natural, when she knows someone who indulges in quite a bit of pornography. What is pornography if not promiscuity without the real world application and repercussions of the act?


Oh well I guess you didn't stalk the thread like pinkwhatever the fuck her name is, based on your quick, generalized judgment. In the thread I was trying to gain input on why men feel the need to do this? I have a child with him and am pregnant again, and the porn was a point of contention in my marriage at the time. I came on here to try and get different perspectives, from anonymous people because it felt like a safe place to do so(obviously it isn't). Also, what does me denying sexual promiscuity have to do with my husband watching pornography? Are you saying because I don't like porn, I should leave him because it falls in line with being sexually promiscuous? I am struggling to see the correlation, you just failed at drawing?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

lek373 said:


> Oh well I guess you didn't stalk the thread like pinkwhatever the fuck her name is, based on your quick, generalized judgment. In the thread I was trying to gain input on why men feel the need to do this? I have a child with him and am pregnant again, and the porn was a point of contention in my marriage at the time. I came on here to try and get different perspectives, from anonymous people because it felt like a safe place to do so(obviously it isn't). Also, what does me denying sexual promiscuity have to do with my husband watching pornography? Are you saying because I don't like porn, I should leave him because it falls in line with being sexually promiscuous? I am struggling to see the correlation, you just failed at drawing?


I'm not telling you to do anything, that's your business. What I am saying the indulgence in pornography in tantamount to promiscuity. Desiring to view people of various shapes, colors, sizes engaging in a plethora of sexual acts is the same as desiring to want to have various kinds of sex with people of various shapes, colors and sizes. You know someone who indulges in it and fail to see how it can originate from a natural place. Just pointing that out.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

android654 said:


> I'm not telling you to do anything, that's your business. What I am saying the indulgence in pornography in tantamount to promiscuity. Desiring to view people of various shapes, colors, sizes engaging in a plethora of sexual acts is the same as desiring to want to have various kinds of sex with people of various shapes, colors and sizes. You know someone who indulges in it and fail to see how it can originate from a natural place. Just pointing that out.


You do realize the person you're quoting is retired, gone, and by the comments on this thread she's never coming back.

This whole thread is so amusing, really it is . I don't think about the single life anymore, and the more i read on PerC in terms of relationships , all the superficial shallow threads about attraction and whatnot, the more i am super blessed to never have to be in that playing field again.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I hooked up with a guy once, and ended up thinking I was falling for him, and he turned around and used me for sex and lead me on for many months. It was devastating to me.


this is why i don't subscribe to the whole 'promiscuity harms no-one' thinking. it mayn't each & every time, but it does happen - and often. there is a lot of manipulation that goes on in the casual sex scene.



BuckeyeENFP said:


> And I'm definitely very sexual....always have been. But I don't go fuck everything that walks when I'm horny. The assumption that people who don't hookup are not sexual is ridiculous. Perhaps we have more self control, or simply have other outlets like masturbation or running that we turn to instead of casual sex. And if I'm in a relationship, oh boy, my poor boyfriend can barely keep up with my sex drive (though he won't admit it!). I literally want to jump him the minute I see him half the time. But it's not some primal urge that I can't control. It's I love this man and I want him all the time.


yeah. it is ridiculous, having words like 'frigid' slung at you for exercising freedom of choice. according to my INFP, i have a very high sex drive - MUCH higher than his extraverted ex-girlfriend who had a lot of casual sex.

actually, i'm going to go a step further. it disgusts me that people who argue that promiscuity is natural & nothing to be ashamed of then go about using words like 'frigid' to shame those who subscribe to a different way of life. that is utterly hypocritical and more than deplorable.



Promethea said:


> ITT: Being picky about who you have intercourse with is indicative of a mental disorder of some sort.
> 
> Aaaand now we know!
> 
> Christ.


^ this x100


----------



## IAmOrangeToday (Sep 30, 2011)

I think when discussing a lot of sexual issues like this, you have to be able to realise that personally disliking a sexual practice doesn't make it wrong. For example, I would never whip my partner but some might want to and that's okay if both partners want to do it and enjoy doing it and do it safely.

The same with this. Promiscuity and hook-ups aren't for me, but I cannot see what's wrong with it as long as it's consensual and safe. I think people are judged far too harshly for enjoying sex.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> I'm not telling you to do anything, that's your business. What I am saying the indulgence in pornography in tantamount to promiscuity. Desiring to view people of various shapes, colors, sizes engaging in a plethora of sexual acts is the same as desiring to want to have various kinds of sex with people of various shapes, colors and sizes. You know someone who indulges in it and fail to see how it can originate from a natural place. Just pointing that out.


There is a difference between fantasy and reality; desire and action are two different things.

Moreover, it's when a person loses the ability to distinguish between the two that things often start going very wrong, and that doesn't just pertain to sexuality.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> There is a difference between fantasy and reality; desire and action are two different things.
> 
> Moreover, it's when a person loses the ability to distinguish between the two that things often start going very wrong, and that doesn't just pertain to sexuality.


It's nothing more than an outlet for a desire. Acting upon it wasn't my point. My point was that it is natural, ingrained in us as a species. The use of pornography is nothing more than taking that natural urge and placing in in an arena that is free from social consequences. There's no difference from wanting to fuck 5 people in an afternoon and masturbating while watching 5 people fuck.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> It's nothing more than an outlet for a desire. Acting upon it wasn't my point. My point was that it is natural, ingrained in us as a species. The use of pornography is nothing more than taking that natural urge and placing in in an arena that is free from social consequences. There's no difference from wanting to fuck 5 people in an afternoon and masturbating while watching 5 people fuck.


You were equating fantasy and solo sexual acts to promiscuity which is nonsense and wrong by definition. No one is denying that humans have natural sexual urges that need release. The problems (for me) arise when superficial/shallow relationships come into the picture to serve as a method of release.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> You were equating fantasy and solo sexual acts to promiscuity which is nonsense and wrong by definition. No one is denying that humans have natural sexual urges that need release. The problems (for me) arise when superficial/shallow relationships come into the picture to serve as a method of release.



Let me get this right. Wanting to masturbate and see multiple people in a variety of sex acts does not mean that you have a desire to have sex with multiple people in various ways? That's ridiculous. Since it's inception, media of every kind has been utilized as a means to indulge in desires without having to engage in them. Someone who enjoys watching pornography with different people doing different things is no different in desire from someone who goes out to a club, picks someone up and fucks them in the bathroom. The concept is the same, a desire for sex, the availability of selection among partners and the variety of acts.

Explain how the two mindsets are different.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> Let me get this right. Wanting to masturbate and see multiple people in a variety of sex acts does not mean that you have a desire to have sex with multiple people in various ways? That's ridiculous. Since it's inception, media of every kind has been utilized as a means to indulge in desires without having to engage in them. Someone who enjoys watching pornography with different people doing different things is no different in desire from someone who goes out to a club, picks someone up and fucks them in the bathroom. The concept is the same, a desire for sex, the availability of selection among partners and the variety of acts.
> 
> Explain how the two mindsets are different.


I already explained the difference. One is fantasy, the other is reality. One is free of real world consequences, the other is not. Two very different things.

Would you equate the enjoyment of slasher films to homicidal tendencies?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> I already explained the difference. One is fantasy, the other is reality. Two very different things.
> 
> Would you equate the enjoyment of slasher films to homicidal tendencies?


That's hypocritical. If you claim there's a superiority to being tied to asingular mate for sexual activity, then the use of pornography can not be permissible by those standards. The mindset of those two persons are exactly the same, the only difference is one has the freedom to do as the please and the other extends their urges through a computer. Viewing various kinds of porn is tantamount to wanting to sleep around. 

Films make for a bad comparison since the act of masturbating turns porn from a video into an interactive medium. It's more like video games. As someone who spends a lot of time around boxers I can tell you that they fighting games almost as much as they do actually sparring. See, violence much like sex is a part of all apes. That's why chimps will rip each other apart, why gorillas will wrestle, and why we like to see every Jason Statham movie and play every Mortal Kombat that comes out. You're a beast, get over it.


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

I believe everyone should have the ability to choose. As long as we have the hook-up culture, I suppose we have both - the option for either casual sex or a more traditional life-style - whereas the other way round would result in only one.


----------



## SuburbanLurker (Sep 26, 2010)

android654 said:


> That's hypocritical. If you claim there's a superiority to being tied to asingular mate for sexual activity, then the use of pornography can not be permissible by those standards. The mindset of those two persons are exactly the same, the only difference is one has the freedom to do as the please and the other extends their urges through a computer. Viewing various kinds of porn is tantamount to wanting to sleep around.


You're not understanding my argument despite my best efforts to explain it. I don't see any point in continuing this debate.



> You're a beast, get over it.


After that remark I think it's become blatantly clear that all you're doing here is projecting your level of sexual degeneracy onto everyone else in order to delude yourself into believing you have moral and ethical standards (or that everyone else doesn't). You may consider yourself a beast, but I'm a human; I live by my intellect, not my basic instincts.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

android654 said:


> Viewing various kinds of porn is tantamount to wanting to sleep around.


Are you sure about that. In that case i better tell my husband when he's away after watching some very interesting porn that he can't trust me, my motivation is to sleep around.  I respect your opinion, but can't tell you how much i disagree with it. What you are saying here doesn't make any sense. And how can you pinpoint what is motivating people when watching porn. Unless you can read my mind or the minds of others, it's only your perception, certainly not absolute truth .  

If i misunderstood what you are saying here, disregard. I'm pretty sure i didn't, but...it happens.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

SuburbanLurker said:


> You're not understanding my argument despite my best efforts to explain it. I don't see any point in continuing this debate.
> 
> 
> After that remark I think it's become blatantly clear that all you're doing here is projecting your level of sexual degeneracy onto everyone else in order to delude yourself into believing you have moral and ethical standards (or that everyone else doesn't). You may consider yourself a beast, but I'm a human; I live by my intellect, not my basic instincts.


Bravo! You've defeated the narcissistic liberal troll without paying the bridge toll!

Symptoms of narcissism;

-Problems distinguishing the self from others
-Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
-Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people

And many more.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

Joseph said:


> So what I said about being a product of past social-conservatism is correct? That's basically what I got from this post. It may not be directly influenced by social conservatism, but when parents/tv/friends talk about how hooking up is wrong, a child will subconsciously pick up on that. I think we are basically saying the same thing. Hookup culture is no different in that both are fueled by social conditioning.


No, I'm saying what I said. That yes there are *SOME* people that it's a product of their environment. But for others it's simply a personal choice. I grew up in a very socially liberal family, yet I chose not to participate in the hookup culture at my college. Part of it was fear of disease or pregnancy. But most of it was that I wanted relationships, and the idea of meaningless sex had/has no positive benefits for me. If I needed sexual release and wasn't in a relationship, that's what masturbation is for. 





> She was not used. There was just a miscommunication between I and her. She didn't want any long term relationships with my three friends she hooked up with. She didn't try that with my friends. For some reason, after she and I hooked up a few times she said she wanted to be more serious. I don't know if it's because I'm not a party-animal like them, or I just seem a like relationship person, or whatever.
> 
> I didn't destroy her. She presented herself to us as someone who didn't want a long-term relationship! I don't think it is a double standard. If someone is less attracted to me for a relationship because I hooked up with her, so be it. How am I pushing a double standard? I don't mind if I seem less appealing for a relationship after hooking up with her.
> 
> ...


While I was responding to your story, most of what I said was in generalities, not specifically this girl.

However, you said that seeing her hooking up with your friends made you not interested in a relationship with her...this is exactly proving my point. That while guys want girls who sleep around for fun times, those are not the girls they are thinking about taking home to mom or marrying. 

So my argument still stands, that the hookup culture does damage girls who do want long-term relationships, because it makes them less attractive mates.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> While I was responding to your story, most of what I said was in generalities, not specifically this girl.
> 
> However, you said that seeing her hooking up with your friends made you not interested in a relationship with her...this is exactly proving my point. *That while guys want girls who sleep around for fun times, those are not the girls they are thinking about taking home to mom or marrying.
> 
> So my argument still stands, that the hookup culture does damage girls who do want long-term relationships, because it makes them less attractive mates*.


Yes, yes and yes. I can't tell you how many men said those exact words to me, not about me, about other women. Women don't comprehend what some men are really looking for in a mate. You may be the girl they want to sleep with, but....their real intentions is to seek a women who is more of a lady  I've had men tell me they test women this way. If they can take them home night 1,2,3 and so on, you be sure that every man they have ever dated has bedded them too. Yes, they will continue to sleep with them, but....they are keeping an eye opened for the lady that refuses those options. This is the lady they are soul seeking while enjoying some sex on the side.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Are you sure about that. In that case i better tell my husband when he's away after watching some very interesting porn that he can't trust me, my motivation is to sleep around.  I respect your opinion, but can't tell you how much i disagree with it. What you are saying here doesn't make any sense. And how can you pinpoint what is motivating people when watching porn. Unless you can read my mind or the minds of others, it's only your perception, certainly not absolute truth .
> 
> If i misunderstood what you are saying here, disregard. I'm pretty sure i didn't, but...it happens.


Pornography isn't a form of entertainment like an Arthurian romance, poetry or even erotica. The purpose of pornography is to stimulate sexually to interpret that as anything other than sexual stimulation is to view the medium in a very obscure light. 

I sincerely doubt there's one person in the entire world is sexually attracted to one specific type of person with no room for variation. When you take that into account, having sex with various people and viewing pornography with people of various body types originates from the same desire. Was that a bit clearer?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

SuburbanLurker said:


> You're not understanding my argument despite my best efforts to explain it. I don't see any point in continuing this debate.
> 
> 
> After that remark I think it's become blatantly clear that all you're doing here is projecting your level of sexual degeneracy onto everyone else in order to delude yourself into believing you have moral and ethical standards (or that everyone else doesn't). You may consider yourself a beast, but I'm a human; I live by my intellect, not my basic instincts.


I understood your argument just fine. I wasn't arguing what people are currently doing, I was arguing what comes naturally to us as a species and what doesn't. Just because you didn't pay attention in biology class doesn't mean everyone else didn't. If anyone is projecting anything is someone who thinks they know what is and isn't right. I'm merely stating what is natural.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> No, I'm saying what I said. That yes there are *SOME* people that it's a product of their environment. But for others it's simply a personal choice. I grew up in a very socially liberal family, yet I chose not to participate in the hookup culture at my college. Part of it was fear of disease or pregnancy. But most of it was that I wanted relationships, and the idea of meaningless sex had/has no positive benefits for me. If I needed sexual release and wasn't in a relationship, that's what masturbation is for.


Yup, so we are on the same page. All good. 



> While I was responding to your story, most of what I said was in generalities, not specifically this girl.
> 
> However, you said that seeing her hooking up with your friends made you not interested in a relationship with her...this is exactly proving my point. *That while guys want girls who sleep around for fun times, those are not the girls they are thinking about taking home to mom or marrying. *
> 
> *So my argument still stands, that the hookup culture does damage girls who do want long-term relationships, because it makes them less attractive mates.*


Oh, I thought you were saying like I mistreated her or something, I was a little offended you thought I used her or damaged her. I thought the bolded bit was obvious to everyone, but that's why people aren't supposed to talk about their past to their partner when dating long-term. I certainly wouldn't. 

If someone hooks up with half a social group, it will change the group's opinion of them. I certainly couldn't see her as someone with long-term material, but I'm sure someone else in another group would. 

@android654

Just give up on him. His life is going to be hard enough, trying to find a compatible girl who has never had who has never had a ONS. My brother struggled during a very-long-term relationship with a girl because after they were together for a months+, they started talking about exes. She hooked up with a few guys before she met him, and he looked down on her for it. It ruined their relationship.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

StElmosDream said:


> No idea why but I can't help but think of a prostitute or stripper who separates the acts from their personality and defines self respect more by mirror reflection and 'off the job' personality.
> 
> At the same time it is only fair to note that promiscuity can also be a sign of underlying issues e.g. overindulgence or addictions, mental health issues like manic phase bipolar, self esteem problems, immaturity in anima/animus phases and even depression-endorphins 'self treatment'.


And narcissism.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Joseph said:


> Oh, I thought you were saying like I mistreated her or something, I was a little offended you thought I used her or damaged her. I thought the bolded bit was obvious to everyone, but that's why people aren't supposed to talk about their past to their partner when dating long-term. I certainly wouldn't. .


I don't care how many/few people an SO has slept with. Am I weird this way?

I can understand the awkwardness of it being in your own social circle -- I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who had slept with all my friends either (actually, I also wouldn't hook up with someone like that) -- but if they had past experience elsewhere? I wouldn't mind hearing about it. In fact, I'd be kinda curious. It's part of the general picture of who they are.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

chimeric said:


> I don't care how many/few people an SO has slept with. Am I weird this way?


I think it's more of a guy thing. At least guys in general tend to care more than girls.



> I can understand the awkwardness of it being in your own social circle -- I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who had slept with all my friends either (actually, I also wouldn't hook up with someone like that) -- but if they had past experience elsewhere? I wouldn't mind hearing about it. In fact, I'd be kinda curious. It's part of the general picture of who they are.


For me it just creates problems. I am good friends with two of my long-term exes, and one of them is even in my social circle, and the other is more of a flirty/relationship-help friend. It's just makes things less complicated if both partners don't talk about their past. It can create tension for no reason. All the power to ya~


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Joseph said:


> I think it's more of a guy thing. At least guys in general tend to care more than girls.
> 
> 
> 
> For me it just creates problems. I am good friends with two of my long-term exes, and one of them is even in my social circle, and the other is more of a flirty/relationship-help friend. It's just makes things less complicated if both partners don't talk about their past. It can create tension for no reason. All the power to ya~


With a lot of guys I know it's a conquest thing. They like the idea of getting there before anyone else. Which doesn't make much sense, but whatever.

That's the best policy to have. You wont learn something about someone or gain anything worth gaining by probing them about their ex's.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

chimeric said:


> I don't care how many/few people an SO has slept with. Am I weird this way?




No, you are just more secure than other people worried about it. A persons experiences make up who they are. It should not matter that someone had sex with them before you. Like their penis or vagina has a 'replace after 12,000 miles' on it, or a 'best if used by date!


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

android654 said:


> With a lot of guys I know it's a conquest thing. They like the idea of getting there before anyone else. Which doesn't make much sense, but whatever.
> 
> That's the best policy to have. You wont learn something about someone or gain anything worth gaining by probing them about their ex's.


Eh, it's not probing so much as a general interest in any experiences that helped shape them into who they now are. I'm curious how old they were when they lost their virginity, the worst song they ever had sex to, what they learned from past break-ups, etc. I've hung out with two different exes of people I was then-dating and had no issue either time. I'm just...not that jealous, unless I'm given a reason to be (i.e. am actually treated with disrespect and dropped to second-fiddle status).

If someone didn't want to talk about those things, I wouldn't press. But it annoys me when I feel like parts of me are forbidden in conversation. I like to share all of myself.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

chimeric said:


> Eh, it's not probing so much as a general interest in any experiences that helped shape them into who they now are. I'm curious how old they were when they lost their virginity, the worst song they ever had sex to, what they learned from past break-ups, etc. I've hung out with two different exes of people I was then-dating and had no issue either time. I'm just...not that jealous, unless I'm given a reason to be (i.e. am actually treated with disrespect and dropped to second-fiddle status).
> 
> If someone didn't want to talk about those things, I wouldn't press. But it annoys me when I feel like pasts of me are forbidden in conversation. I like to share all of myself.


Well then we have a difference in interpretation of personal space. I could care less what you did the day before I met you, but the same goes for me. You can have your own songs you have sex to, your own hilarious experiences and your own not-so-sexy sex stories without needing the compare to the ones that came before.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

killerB said:


> No, you are just more secure than other people worried about it. A persons experiences make up who they are. It should not matter that someone had sex with them before you. Like their penis or vagina has a 'replace after 12,000 miles' on it, or a 'best if used by date!


It's a primal feeling, biological thingy. No different than caring how much money your partner makes, how confidant they are, or how physically attractive your partner is. And it's only an issue in long-term relationships I think.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

chimeric said:


> I don't care how many/few people an SO has slept with. Am I weird this way?


Nope. I'm exactly the same way. And actually, I love ex talk. It's really cool when a guy opens up to me this way. I love understanding people and relationships.

My ex husband made me privy to the fact that I was unique this way. He'd stop and say, "Are you sure you want to hear this?" And I would respond, "Oh yes". I love talking about everyone's relationships whether current or past. It's the best type of convo for me. 

However, my ex did say that I'd require a man who was okay with that. They are out there. In fact, I find there are certain men who can look at previous relationships as objectively as me and express their stories in an objective manner. They are so much fun. Sorry to narrow it down to type, but most of those men are INTJs and an ENTP (I could talk about everything with ENTP). In my experience, they don't have a problem with me telling an objective tale of my past, nor do they have a problem sharing their past stories. I get the sense that both of us are just trying to make sense out of it all and how it fits into our understanding of the world. Neither one of us are really jealous type. 



Joseph said:


> I think it's more of a guy thing. At least guys in general tend to care more than girls.


I don't think this is true. I think those that are bothered are either a certain type of guy or a certain type of girl.

The men I date don't have a problem with my past. They are secure. And I am older and usually the both of us either have had children or have either been divorced or obviously have had others. It's ridiculous to think that our sexual life began with each other. And actually that fact can bond us to each other. The fact that we have had other experiences can connect us.



chimeric said:


> Eh, it's not probing so much as a general interest in any experiences that helped shape them into who they now are. I'm curious how old they were when they lost their virginity, the worst song they ever had sex to, what they learned from past break-ups, etc. I've hung out with two different exes of people I was then-dating and had no issue either time. I'm just...not that jealous, unless I'm given a reason to be (i.e. am actually treated with disrespect and dropped to second-fiddle status).
> 
> If someone didn't want to talk about those things, I wouldn't press. But it annoys me when I feel like parts of me are forbidden in conversation. I like to share all of myself.


Omg, you and I are so similar in this that it's freaky.


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

chimeric said:


> I don't care how many/few people an SO has slept with. Am I weird this way?


No, because I do the same thing. I do not care how many sexual partners someone has had provided we sing off the same hymn sheet now. Virtually every woman I've ever been with has been more experienced than me, which causes me no issues. I don't understand why number of partners is such a cause for drama, unless the person has an STI, it's really not my concern what they were doing before they met me. Plus, I fall for people, as such I fail to see a qualitative difference between the number 1 and 101. People have pasts, judging them for it won't change it.



> I can understand the awkwardness of it being in your own social circle -- I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who had slept with all my friends either (actually, I also wouldn't hook up with someone like that) -- but if they had past experience elsewhere? I wouldn't mind hearing about it. In fact, I'd be kinda curious. It's part of the general picture of who they are.


Yes, factors like this would make things complicated. So I'd agree again, hooking up in those circumstances may be more hassle than its worth. Otherwise, I run by the "don't regret a person" philosophy. They provided something, otherwise I'd not have pursued. So it's an opportunity to learn, and a chance to enjoy the moment. Some moments have superb aftermaths some less so. But hindsight is a wonderful thing eh?


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

Joseph said:


> Oh, I thought you were saying like I mistreated her or something, I was a little offended you thought I used her or damaged her. I thought the bolded bit was obvious to everyone, but that's why people aren't supposed to talk about their past to their partner when dating long-term. I certainly wouldn't.
> 
> If someone hooks up with half a social group, it will change the group's opinion of them. I certainly couldn't see her as someone with long-term material, but I'm sure someone else in another group would.


No, I'm sorry for coming across like that, it was not my intent or my point. 

As for the bolded bit and not talking about your past to your partner...I think there's a fine line between not discussing the details of exes, and outrightly lying to a mate. IMHO, it's only natural early on in an intimate/sexual relationship to discuss at the very least the number of sexual partners. Or maybe it's just me, I don't know. Same as men who look down on women who have slept around when looking for long-term relationships, at least I do the same. I don't want to be with a guy who has slept with dozens of women (as in having lots of meaningless sex). It makes me feel like I'm nothing special, that to him sex is nothing more than a physical act.

With my boyfriend we were upfront about our sexual history from the start, and while we don't talk in-depth about our exes, they do come up in conversation occasionally - I actually know quite about about his exes, either from things he has told me or things his friends and family have told me. Though I also understand that's a personal preference in an individual relationship. Plus, I'm curious. These 3 women have molded who he is so significantly, for good and bad. His mistakes with them have made him a better person, a better boyfriend. His experiences with them have made him realize what he wants and what he doesn't want. And he knows about my two exes, and how they have shaped me. 

However, I still think lying to a future mate/spouse is not right. To me that's like hiding part of who you are/were, and giving the other person a false idea of who you are and your past. Maybe it's my idealist mind, but I want someone to love me for who I am, past baggage and all. But, maybe that's just me.....


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

It fascinates me to no end that having mucho sex is considered a _bad_ thing. I was debating necrophilia at one point and there was an article that suggests changing necrophilia from a sexual offense to property vandalism (because the body supposedly belongs to the next of kin) and it makes me really aware of how sex, when not in a marital context, is always associated with taint and impurity, with _defilement_​. Very interesting.


----------

