How important do you consider sex?

[samael_morningstar]

As a 16 year old male, it seems stereotypical of me to enjoy the idea of sex, I've never had it and perhaps that voids my opinion on this subject a little, however, I've been in a relationship for near on 2 years now with a girl whom I love dearly. As my relationship has progressed, my views on sex have changed quite considerably.

At the present time, I believe that sex is very much something that should be shared with someone you love and I believe it's also an important part of a long term relationship because, as other posts have stated, its something that you can share as part of the intimacy in your relationship. In contrast of this however, as part of being with my girlfriend, who has a stronger religious background than myself and believes in no sex before marriage (a view which I whole-heartedly respect), I've learnt the joys of sharing intimacy and love for another person without going "as far" as sex.

Overall I'd say that clearly the value of sex varies from person from person (hence this thread) but I feel it would be something that's significant and important to a long term relationship and love.

Yes it's signifigant, and yes you're missing out by being with her. Hope she is worth the denial and you don't get too cut up when she leaves you in a years time to be with a preacher boi.

Try not to think of the loss eh.

This should be straightforward; if you're interested in sex, don't date a christian-virgin who has no plans on putting out. It may seem honourable and all, but all you're doing is kidding yourself, and the fustration will wear you down. If people don't want to have sex, for whatever reason, that's fine, but they shouldn't be romantically involved with people that do, that's just rediculous. It's just my opinion of course, but you should get out now dude.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

Sex is for the continuation of the species, nothing more.

You are doing it wrong, very wrong.

Everytime I share my opinion on this subject, some genius thinks it's clever to say that.

And every time that person is right. Humans (and some other apes) have evolved so that it is also recreational and it has been shown to be a ongoing tool for bonding.

If you think its only about making babies, you simply are wrong.

I believe the question was, "How important is sex to you?" I answered the question. For me personally, reproduction is the only purpose of sex because I derive no pleasure from it. You cannot say I am wrong simply because you do not share my opinion.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

Ok first off yes you have me there. You're right in that it is more a point of philosophy than physics generally.
The only point I will argue is that which you bring up of "is sex important".
I know it's not the main thrust of your reply but i want to focus on this aspect as I think it is central to the founding idea of this thread - How important is sex to you.

Why sex is important: it makes new people.

Is it important to indivdual people? Not always.


In history we have cases of people in power with a supply of hundreds if not thousands of concubines, and I'm talking on the procreative level here, we can see how on the genetic level that works. If oddly accepted at that time.
The human being is a form wishing to procreate itself, and we all can understand that. The more so (we procreate) the better for our genetic heretage.

With that in mind, what does it say about those that think sex, and by implication propergating their own genes, is unimportant? I draw attention to the Darwin awards. Those that took themselves out of the gene pool before they could procreate.

Well, obviously I agree with you on this and I never had any intention of making procreation seem pointless, I belive that is always an issue when it comes to sex. But OP's original post was stating he was focusing not on the procreative aspect of sex but on the more casual "I'm bored let's bone" and how we all feel about that.

I wouldn't sit here and say that sex isn't important because from the procrative standpoint it is important, without any argument, but I didn't mention this specifically because that wasn't what OP was asking.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

I don't think sex is important at all. Actually, I think it's overrated.

Also, I can't miss what I'll never experience.

Okay, I'll bite. Why?

The media and society in turn, place too much "importance" on sex. Like taxes, it's everywhere; TV, adverts, people freely discussing it openly just about anyplace I go. In the US, it's basically a rite of passage to (wo)manhood. Nowadays, people treat those who have yet to have sex (without having to resort to prostitution) as creeps, stalkers, pariahs and other unsavory things (this goes double for men, due to the bullshit that is double standards).

No, I was asking about why you won't ever experience it XD

Oh. A combination of social awkwardness and asexuality did the trick.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If Pop Culture was my way they would have to play all their so called "music" behind a screen on ACOUSTIC with no backing tracks or modifications of ANY sort. That would truly separate the talent from the poseurs. My rules for music "If it can't be played clean and still sound good, it's not music"

No items, fox only, final destination.

Excuse me while go I listen to the Pixies.

And none of that has anything to do with sex...
o.0

If you don't think so, you're missing out.


(On a more serious note, there's this totally awesome blog on tumblr called "music to have sex to." Worth a look-see.)

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

It's essential in every thing we do. From advertising, to design, to everything. Status symbols are about sex, earning money is about better sex, everything. It is the ultimate gratification, built in by nature

I don't buy these "non sexual" people. If you are young, it's because you haven't matured yet, and if you are older, it's bullshit, generally spun by someone who has given up on it, rather than feels nothing for it

This might surprise you, but there are people with different sex drives than your own. There are heterosexual people, homosexual people, a whole spectrum of bisexual people, and yes, there are even those who have no sexual interest at all, and not for lack of experience. Some people are just, through nature or nurture, wired differently. There's nothing wrong with asexuality - it shouldn't be pathologized - and it's not uncommon for members of the asexual community to be hetero/homo/biromantic. Thank you wikipedia.

Just be aware that not everyone's after what you're after.

Also - just to clear things up: even to Freud, sex was only one of many forces influencing human behavior.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I concur with these two guys. And the urge doesn't die down in your mid-twenties either as I've found out. Unfortunately I'm also of the opinion that most women are insane, although that's another debate, or maybe it's just NZ girls? When I finally find a sane girl again I look forward to getting laid regularly P.S: I'm not an asshole, just a nice guy jaded by experience

So everyone else is crazy *and* you're also a nice guy.

No offense Lord Lucifer, but I suspect you are the prince of lies.

(Is your username a reference to a popular Vertigo comic, or two?)

 

[Verlander]

It's essential in every thing we do. From advertising, to design, to everything. Status symbols are about sex, earning money is about better sex, everything. It is the ultimate gratification, built in by nature

I don't buy these "non sexual" people. If you are young, it's because you haven't matured yet, and if you are older, it's bullshit, generally spun by someone who has given up on it, rather than feels nothing for it

This might surprise you, but there are people with different sex drives than your own. There are heterosexual people, homosexual people, a whole spectrum of bisexual people, and yes, there are even those who have no sexual interest at all, and not for lack of experience. Some people are just, through nature or nurture, wired differently. There's nothing wrong with asexuality - it shouldn't be pathologized - and it's not uncommon for members of the asexual community to be hetero/homo/biromantic. Thank you wikipedia.

Just be aware that not everyone's after what you're after.

Also - just to clear things up: even to Freud, sex was only one of many forces influencing human behavior.

Very true, and I applaud you for most likely being far more mature about it than I. However, I just can't believe it. It would have to be a chemical imbalance, as that's what sexual urge is. Men can often loose their sex drive after a vasectomy.

I'm not a Freudian either, so unfortunately that doesn't concern me in the slightest. I understand how it's notable considering his obsession with sex, but I believe him to be wrong on to many points for the statement to hold any water

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Very true, and I applaud you for most likely being far more mature about it than I. However, I just can't believe it. It would have to be a chemical imbalance, as that's what sexual urge is. Men can often loose their sex drive after a vasectomy.

You're affirming the consequent. Just because X can cause Y, it doesn't mean that all instances of Y are dependent on X. Meaning that hormonal balance may cause someone to lose their sex drive, but it doesn't mean that everyone with no sex drive merely has a low hormonal balance.

And it indeed seems that hormones aren't the cause.

Hormonal or Chemical Imbalances - While some drugs do repress libido, and pregnant and pre-natal women lack a sex drive, hormonal problems are rarely the cause of asexuality. Many asexuals have gone through rigorous tests which conclude that their hormones are completely normal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4455263

I'm not a Freudian either, so unfortunately that doesn't concern me in the slightest. I understand how it's notable considering his obsession with sex, but I believe him to be wrong on to many points for the statement to hold any water

...The statement wasn't by Freud, it includes Freud. Freud's been flanderized by pop culture. All people remember him for is the zex.

 

[thegrimfandango]

I have a healthy enough sex drive for a 27-year old female, I consider sex important - very much so within the confines of a relationship, I would never willingly have a sexless relationship - I put work into keeping a sex life interesting & active, for me it helps cement the relationship. Outwith a relationship, I consider it less important, but still important to keep me happy & healthy & whole. I can and have gone without sex for long time periods, but I really prefer not to - I get fierce grumpy for a while but I eventually adjust haha.
As I get older and spend longer in a monogamous relationship, yes there are times when life gets in the way and sex has to go on the backburner - clashing timetables, trips away, too much to do etc, but that doesn't diminish it's importance.
Since I'm gay, procreation doesn't enter into it, for me, sex is for it's own sake, whatever my motivations may be at the time.

As for sex in popular culture, It's creepy and unrealistic, almost clinical. And attitudes towards sex are often puerile & weird. Women can be taught that they need to look sexy, be a 'sex goddess', yet at the same time there's an attitude that women only have sex for men, and that they need to be 'tricked' into it. As a gay woman, some of these 'myths' are particularly irritating - so many guys seem to think I give a shit what they think of my sex life - they're intrusive in a way they wouldn't be with male/female heterosexual friends. Apparently making joke? requests about watching your mate Bob & his girlfriend fuck is creepy, but it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say to a lesbian. These 'myths' I'm talking about include; All lesbians are doing it for the benefit of men (really? you think women are having sex with each other for YOUR benefit? Get over yourself & learn about the porn/reality divide), If there isn't a penis involved it doesn't count, You're only gay because you couldn't get a guy/Just need the right man etc etc.
I'm gonna stop now since I already wrote about 3x what I intended.

 

[Verlander]

You're affirming the consequent. Just because X can cause Y, it doesn't mean that all instances of Y are dependent on X. Meaning that hormonal balance may cause someone to lose their sex drive, but it doesn't mean that everyone with no sex drive merely has a low hormonal balance.

Then it's they way they are applied. As a fella of science, I believe people are very complicated machines, and nowhere does asexuality make sense. I would never be so ignorant to assume that asexual people were "broken", but a reproductive drive is pretty much our primary purpose. Ergo, if they have the correct hormone levels, there must be a psychological or physical barrier preventing this impulse.

...The statement wasn't by Freud, it includes Freud. Freud's been flanderized by pop culture. All people remember him for is the zex.

I didn't say it was by Freud. Although it begs the question why you bothered to name drop him in the first place? I'll agree with you about the pop culture thing.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

You're affirming the consequent. Just because X can cause Y, it doesn't mean that all instances of Y are dependent on X. Meaning that hormonal balance may cause someone to lose their sex drive, but it doesn't mean that everyone with no sex drive merely has a low hormonal balance.

Then it's they way they are applied. As a fella of science, I believe people are very complicated machines, and nowhere does asexuality make sense. I would never be so ignorant to assume that asexual people were "broken", but a reproductive drive is pretty much our primary purpose. Ergo, if they have the correct hormone levels, there must be a psychological or physical barrier preventing this impulse.

Nothing in nature is "meant." We're all random mutations filtered through natural selection. (ie: whatever's here is here merely because it had what it needed to survive circumstance). It just so happens that natural selection accounts for more than eating and fucking. A human infant can't fend for itself. There's safety, social stability, education. As social animals, we're very reliant on our society to care for and nurture us. Human society has also been shaped by random trial and error, and so have our ancestors' brains. I also don't think they'd be happier.

There are quite a few cultures that revere people who turn away from society-at-large. They tend to fill certain social roles. Does it not make sense, in terms of natural selection, for certain people to be born with a tendency to suit these roles and vice versa?

Now, why pathologize asexuality (view it as a problem) if their lack of a sex drive causes them no inherent suffering, and no suffering to people around them? Why pathologize asexuality and not homosexuality? They're equally counter-intuitive in terms of straightforward reproductive viability. Are you suggesting we brainwash, or lobotomize them, for... what? The good of humanity? Because, man, I don't think any of our problems can be solved by increasing our populations.

We're all the products of mutations and bugs: benevolent, benign, or merely not malevolent enough to weed our ancestors out of the gene pool. We all have different genetic code, essentially a different set of bugs. If someone has a different bug than yours, and it's not bothering them, and it's not hurting you or anyone around you, then it's not a problem.

Just because I have reason to believe that science has more predictive power than myth doesn't mean I need to view every psychological difference via the disease model.

...The statement wasn't by Freud, it includes Freud. Freud's been flanderized by pop culture. All people remember him for is the zex.

I didn't say it was by Freud. Although it begs the question why you bothered to name drop him in the first place? I'll agree with you about the pop culture thing.

1) Raises the question.
2) ...Freud's been flanderized to hell. Unimportant tangent is unimportant. (<- begging the question.)
[/semantics] [/pointless tangent that's gone on too long]

 

[Verlander]

You're affirming the consequent. Just because X can cause Y, it doesn't mean that all instances of Y are dependent on X. Meaning that hormonal balance may cause someone to lose their sex drive, but it doesn't mean that everyone with no sex drive merely has a low hormonal balance.

Then it's they way they are applied. As a fella of science, I believe people are very complicated machines, and nowhere does asexuality make sense. I would never be so ignorant to assume that asexual people were "broken", but a reproductive drive is pretty much our primary purpose. Ergo, if they have the correct hormone levels, there must be a psychological or physical barrier preventing this impulse.

Nothing in nature is "meant." We're all random mutations filtered through natural selection. (ie: whatever's here is here merely because it had what it needed to survive circumstance). It just so happens that natural selection accounts for more than eating and fucking. A human infant can't fend for itself. There's safety, social stability, education. As social animals, we're very reliant on our society to care for and nurture us. Human society has also been shaped by random trial and error, and so have our ancestors' brains. I also don't think they'd be happier.

Which is very well for humans, but evolution isn't specific to humans- asexuality does not occur in the animal kingdom, nor the equivalent of the plant kingdom to the same degree without a physical change in hormones, or as an affect of disease and suchlike. If this study of yours concluded that hormone levels, and chemical imbalance were not to blame, then a psychological or sociological factor is very likely to be at play, one which is specific to humans.

There are quite a few cultures that revere people who turn away from society-at-large. They tend to fill certain social roles. Does it not make sense, in terms of natural selection, for certain people to be born with a tendency to suit these roles and vice versa?

Um, no? It doesn't aid our gene pool at all, and so were it natural, you would imagine that it would have been bred out of us by now. The only way it could really have continued is via forced conception, but that wouldn't account for the amount of people claiming to be asexual in this day and age.

Now, why pathologize asexuality (view it as a problem) if their lack of a sex drive causes them no inherent suffering, and no suffering to people around them? Why pathologize asexuality and not homosexuality? They're equally counter-intuitive in terms of straightforward reproductive viability. Are you suggesting we brainwash, or lobotomize them, for... what? The good of humanity? Because, man, I don't think any of our problems can be solved by increasing our populations.

Well, originally I wasn't hating on asexuality, I was merely stating that I didn't buy into a lot of it. While I'm happy to concede (and always have been happy to concede) that some people are born asexual, I also believed (and still do) that the majority who claim to be asexual, aren't. Or, if they are, it's for an artificial reason, one which is harmful to our evolutionary chain.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, the same as a sexual preference in heterosexual couples. They have a sex drive, and a reproductive urge, so I'd class them both differently, although I can see the connection you were trying to make. And as for problems being solved by increasing our population, well thats a different discussion entirely. Separated from this world, however, as a species we depend(ed) on non random survival of random hereditary changes in order to survive and thus we "evolved" to where we are now, and where we shall be in the future. On a cold level, the best thing for people i this world, now, would be to systematically kill off the old and infirm, and keep a steady and regulated population. However we beieve that is "anti human rights" or some other bullshit. However, like I said, different discussion

We're all the products of mutations and bugs: benevolent, benign, or merely not malevolent enough to weed our ancestors out of the gene pool. We all have different genetic code, essentially a different set of bugs. If someone has a different bug than yours, and it's not bothering them, and it's not hurting you or anyone around you, then it's not a problem.

Just because I have reason to believe that science has more predictive power than myth doesn't mean I need to view every psychological difference via the disease model.

I don't class it as a disease as such, but I do see it as damaging. This is the area that we just wont agree on together, and I respect your opinion. In a few thousand years it will hopefully have been bred out of the human evolutionary chain anyway

...The statement wasn't by Freud, it includes Freud. Freud's been flanderized by pop culture. All people remember him for is the zex.

I didn't say it was by Freud. Although it begs the question why you bothered to name drop him in the first place? I'll agree with you about the pop culture thing.

1) Raises the question.
2) ...Freud's been flanderized to hell. Unimportant tangent is unimportant. (<- begging the question.)
[/semantics] [/pointless tangent that's gone on too long]

[/quote]

However you want to say it. My sentence wasn't grammatically incorrect, just not perfect. If you would prefer; I beg the question. I also would suggest that you don't presume to lecture me on grammar when you keep using the term "flanderized". It's just silly.

I'm happy to forget about the Freud thing though, it just seemed a little random

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I also would suggest that you don't presume to lecture me on grammar when you keep using the term "flanderized". It's just silly.

I said nothing about grammar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question