chat, feelings, and random discussion thread
- Thread starter La Rocque
- Start date
- Status
about the whole matter of sexual urges, i think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. it is true that sexual instinct is biologically engrained in humans, for obvious survival reasons. it is also true, as taliesin says, that is a primary instinct. on the other hand, there is a very important difference between the urge to have sex and the other urge that conditions survival, ie eating; if people don't eat or drink they die, whereas they don't die if they don't have sex. in this sense, undocontrol is right when he says that it is not strictly necessary to be sexually active: while it is necessary for the survival of the species as a whole, it is not crucial to the survival of a single individual.
on the other hand, it can be claimed - often with scientific backup - that some kinds of sexual activity improve the quality of life. but, as i said, there is a lot of demistifying to do. for example, look at this very interesting study (published by a noticeably prestigious institution): http://www.nber.org/papers/w10499. You will note that while it says that sex is positively correlated with self-reported happiness, it is also fairly clear that "happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is calculated to be 1". This might be a strong hint toward the fact that happiness-enhancing effects of sexual activity have a lot to do with strong, stable relationships where sex is both a pleasurable activity per se and a vehicule of deep connection. If you read the paper, you will find references to a very large literature on the subject, methodologically reliable and conceptually interesting; all studies more or less concur on conclusions that can be summarized in "married people have more sex than other people, they're happier about their sex and they're also happier in general". This also means that the strongly negative effect that bad marriages have on well-being is not enough to offset the positive effect that good marriages have on well-being, ie the idea that marriage is "the tomb of love" and more likely to fail than succeed is basically bullshit.
and even leaving this specific study (and a host of similar ones) aside,
there are a lot of commonplace, unsubstantiated rumors about the idea that people who are not promiscuous are "losers" and/or suffer from psychological imbalances, eg are more prone to violent bouts of anger or similar. when someone is hot-tempered they'll get routinely told "you should get laid more often", but i think that this kind of insight is more or less as valid as the sexist slur according to which women are more unstable than men because they have periods, so whenever a woman loses her temper she gets asked "is it that time of the month?". there is a grain of scientific truth to both - high progesterone levels in the blood might have an effect on the intensity of emotions, and high endorphin levels in the blood might induce an improvement of social behavior. on the other hand, these mechanical, deterministic connections always overlook a very important aspect of life, namely that humans have a thing called willpower. PMS might make me emotional, but then again a high fever or a cold might make me short-fused; curiously, the two things get a different treatment from popular culture. the former is related to sexuality, so it is considered an unavoidable fact: i'm a woman, i'm going to get PMS, i'm going to be very fickle during it. the latter is related to general health, so people will (rightly) think that i am completely stupid if i start yelling at random people or behaving badly because i have a cold, and they will (rightly) assume that besides having a cold i also have a brain so i should be able to control the adverse effects of toxins circulating in my body.
this is just one example of the enormous amount of incongruities that circulate around the topic - proving, in my opinion, that the very people who think they are being open-minded and emancipated are inclined to superstition more than anything. for example: based on women's magazines and the likes, people assume that sex is good for your health, even when it's casual. so it's ok to go into a club, pick up a person you like, and go to bed with them. in the same club, would you drink from a random glass of beer that had been left on a table? no, you wouldn't, for health reasons. 'nuff said.
there's nothing wrong in saying that you LIKE to perform sex for the sake of it. but all the "watertight" arguments proving that it's good for you in some medical sense are just a very hypocritical (and often false) device to conceal the fact that well, you like to perform sex for the sake of it.
on the other hand, it can be claimed - often with scientific backup - that some kinds of sexual activity improve the quality of life. but, as i said, there is a lot of demistifying to do. for example, look at this very interesting study (published by a noticeably prestigious institution): http://www.nber.org/papers/w10499. You will note that while it says that sex is positively correlated with self-reported happiness, it is also fairly clear that "happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is calculated to be 1". This might be a strong hint toward the fact that happiness-enhancing effects of sexual activity have a lot to do with strong, stable relationships where sex is both a pleasurable activity per se and a vehicule of deep connection. If you read the paper, you will find references to a very large literature on the subject, methodologically reliable and conceptually interesting; all studies more or less concur on conclusions that can be summarized in "married people have more sex than other people, they're happier about their sex and they're also happier in general". This also means that the strongly negative effect that bad marriages have on well-being is not enough to offset the positive effect that good marriages have on well-being, ie the idea that marriage is "the tomb of love" and more likely to fail than succeed is basically bullshit.
and even leaving this specific study (and a host of similar ones) aside,
there are a lot of commonplace, unsubstantiated rumors about the idea that people who are not promiscuous are "losers" and/or suffer from psychological imbalances, eg are more prone to violent bouts of anger or similar. when someone is hot-tempered they'll get routinely told "you should get laid more often", but i think that this kind of insight is more or less as valid as the sexist slur according to which women are more unstable than men because they have periods, so whenever a woman loses her temper she gets asked "is it that time of the month?". there is a grain of scientific truth to both - high progesterone levels in the blood might have an effect on the intensity of emotions, and high endorphin levels in the blood might induce an improvement of social behavior. on the other hand, these mechanical, deterministic connections always overlook a very important aspect of life, namely that humans have a thing called willpower. PMS might make me emotional, but then again a high fever or a cold might make me short-fused; curiously, the two things get a different treatment from popular culture. the former is related to sexuality, so it is considered an unavoidable fact: i'm a woman, i'm going to get PMS, i'm going to be very fickle during it. the latter is related to general health, so people will (rightly) think that i am completely stupid if i start yelling at random people or behaving badly because i have a cold, and they will (rightly) assume that besides having a cold i also have a brain so i should be able to control the adverse effects of toxins circulating in my body.
this is just one example of the enormous amount of incongruities that circulate around the topic - proving, in my opinion, that the very people who think they are being open-minded and emancipated are inclined to superstition more than anything. for example: based on women's magazines and the likes, people assume that sex is good for your health, even when it's casual. so it's ok to go into a club, pick up a person you like, and go to bed with them. in the same club, would you drink from a random glass of beer that had been left on a table? no, you wouldn't, for health reasons. 'nuff said.
there's nothing wrong in saying that you LIKE to perform sex for the sake of it. but all the "watertight" arguments proving that it's good for you in some medical sense are just a very hypocritical (and often false) device to conceal the fact that well, you like to perform sex for the sake of it.
hyena said:
Finding excuses for your own vivid sex-life is lame - since one doesn't have to explain anything (and should remember to take all things in moderation... even World of Warcraft!), but hearing about "sex isn't necessary, sex without love it totally pointless, there's nothing healthy about normal sex life" from a bunch of virgins - that does not qualify for an argument, cuz pissing against the wind never was one.
//I read what I wrote and found a few typos. In bad words, so I removed them.
well, using 'virgin' as an insult or an indication that someone either has or hasn't the right to discuss a topic is not the smartest thing i've ever heard, but let's just forget about it. 
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
plintus said:
I just said my opinion, and no, I'm not a virgin and I speak from my experience and experience of people I know.
And I'll piss against the wind every time I don't like something that today's society states as normal, and it isn't to me.
To me sex without love IS pointless, did it, tried it (eventhough I had some feelings for the guy, he did less for me) and got how sad and empty it is, so I can't even imagine how empty it feels without ANY feelings.
I never said there's nothing healthy about normal sex life, what is important is with who you have that normal sex life and why you have it, but what you all said here about it being healthy in various medical things is bullshit.
To me, it becomes unhealthy in all other cases except in one I said I want.
And yes, I find sex unnecessary as just an action between two people who don't give a shit about each other.
I see many more unhappy people who have sex with many partners, than the ones who have it with their loved ones.
And YOU should stop being so hypocritical and say one thing here and act opposite in normal life. Or now you want to say that you do have a sex life there?
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
KitKat said:
Maybe you should
... ok, joking aside, I know what you mean, and I know it matters, I'm just saying it should matter even more, that's all.Rincewind said:
I'm tired of Pampers' shit about things he doesn't know much about. I mean - colonizing Mars was OK, chemical shit was fine, but as soon as he got into sex - that's where I draw the line.
You got to love what you have, if you can't have what you love. Loser's attitude, but works for some. In my case it's all or nothing. Or maybe. If it moves. I'm not on the fucking schedule currently, but always looking forward to
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
plintus said:I'm tired of Pampers' shit about things he doesn't know much about. I mean - colonizing Mars was OK, chemical shit was fine, but as soon as he got into sex - that's where I draw the line.
You got to love what you have, if you can't have what you love. Loser's attitude, but works for some. In my case it's all or nothing. Or maybe. If it moves. I'm not on the fucking schedule currently, but always looking forward to
And how should YOU know how much he knows? I didn't know you have to have a fucking diploma in sex knowing things, it's enough to have your opinion about it, and you're always right in it 'cause it is your opinion and you live based on it.
Virgins related: So what, you're saying that all virgins of the world aren't supposed to have opinion / know about sex enough to have the opinion they have?
It's ok, it's your attitude and you live by it and good luck with that. I would never be satisfied with something less of what I really want, I'd rather be without it completely than to settle with less (talking about things where you have a choice, of course, like this one).
Rincewind said:
No one. Fucking. Cares. About. Your. Fucking. Opinion. If. You. Have. No. Enough. Fucking. Credibility. Regarding. The. Subject.
So virgins can all go fuck themselves with tehir opinions about whether sex is healthy, necessary or whatever the fuck, cuz theory and personal experiences are different things.
Period.
Still I have to decide if kicking the shit out of old ladies in wheelchairs is more fun.
Most studies probably assume that you're having sex with a loved one, but even if you dont, it's still a kind of sport. And you wont tell me sport isnt healthy either, will you?Rincewind said:
And even if you dont love the one you're having sex with, what's it to you? Why are we even discussing this?
So you see more people who are having sex with different people than people who are unhappy and have sex with someone they love.. well that's a big surprise. Still, everyone has the right to fuck whoever they want, as did you, so what's your point?
What's the point of this discussion, is there a final statement anyone wants to reach or is this a collective stating of opinions?
Rincewind said:Maybe you should
It matters a lot, did I say the opposite ? It only happened a few times... don't say to me what I should do, you just don't know...
i concur on the fact that nobody should tell others how to lead their sex lives, when there is no child abuse or public health problem involved. but please do remember that it goes both ways. it is wrong to point a finger toward those who have multiple partners, sequentially or at the same time, and say "you are a whore" or "you are evil". it is also wrong to snicker behind the back of those who choose to have sex with 1 partner only or those who choose abstinence, and say "you are a prude" or "you don't have the right to an opinion".
this said, i don't know if i'm qualified enough to talk about sex, but i must admit that i am starting to feel weirdly alienated from the whole field of relationships and relevant topics, as if they were something i've heard of but really don't have an idea about, like - say - taoism or genetically modified potatoes. i think i don't get how the whole thing works (well, i'm not talking about the mechanics of sex), and i'm honestly worried about how to deal with it. my past failed attempts at relationships more or less had a reason - there was another girl, there was no physical attraction, there was no mutual esteem. but right now i'm confronted with simple impossibility theorems that reach too far beyond my grasp.
this said, i don't know if i'm qualified enough to talk about sex, but i must admit that i am starting to feel weirdly alienated from the whole field of relationships and relevant topics, as if they were something i've heard of but really don't have an idea about, like - say - taoism or genetically modified potatoes. i think i don't get how the whole thing works (well, i'm not talking about the mechanics of sex), and i'm honestly worried about how to deal with it. my past failed attempts at relationships more or less had a reason - there was another girl, there was no physical attraction, there was no mutual esteem. but right now i'm confronted with simple impossibility theorems that reach too far beyond my grasp.
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
plintus said:
So I guess everybody should try all ***** before they can say it's not healthy, or do all crimes before saying they're wrong, etc... please.
Taliesin said:
I said before I agree only with that, everything else (like decreasing possibility of cancer or heart attack) is bullshit to me and was never proven.
Oh, sorry, I thought we discuss all kinds of subjects here.
I never said they don't have a right to do it, I said I wouldn't do it and my point was sharing here my opinion on the subject, something I knew I shouldn't do here, 'cause it always ends up like this, but well, I had to say it this time.
What's the point of any discussion? To me, seeing what people think about many subjects.
KitKat said:
I never said to you what you should do, I said before - it's your life and enjoy if you like it. My point from the begining was what I think about it in my life and why I wouldn't do it.
Yes, I don't know how it is to change partners more than socks (and no, this is not directed at you) and I don't wanna know.
Rincewind said:
You lost me pages ago :Smug:
I might have been exaggerating about virgins, but I'll understand one even less if he/she/it is not one and claims sex is unnecessary and to be performed in the company of the loved one(s) only.
You ought to have an opinion, of course, but when there are attempts of a point to be made - you got to differ one from another, i.e. "sex is not necessary cuz I said so" and "sex is not necesary cuz a) g) z)". The only question remains - how can you pour bullshit and not be making a point... I got to fogure how to get away with that one... hm...
Rincewind
Find tranquillity in dark
Taliesin said:Yea because every time YOUR discussions end up like this it is obviously OUR fault.
First of all, this wasn't MY discussion, I didn't start it.
Second, yes, with some people you just can't discuss without getting flamed if you don't have the same opinion.
No, it is my fault, for even trying.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
on the other hand, i'm growing completely disinterested in onanistic practices, erotic literature, porn. i think i'm growing completely disinterested in life, from a certain point of view.
- Status
