Sexual liberation

[DarthSka]

I don't really know the difference between being sexually liberated and, what, non-liberated? My sexual nature just, is. All I got growing up sex wise was, "wait until marriage," but I never got any real talk on the matter. I haven't had actual intercourse but I've engaged in some activities with my girlfriend, and we intend to wait for the actual act. That's mostly for emotional reasons as well as reducing the chance of pregnancy to zero. So, I feel fine with how I am.

On a side note, I notice that some people are still pissed that you can't be naked in public. You know what, I'm fine with that. I generally don't want to see other people naked, attractive or otherwise.

 

[LittleThestral]

Nope. I grew up with the "if you have sex before marriage your wiener will fall off/vagina will shrivel and you will DIE WITH AIDS" bullshit, had a promise ring foisted upon me (no purity ball, though, thank Astania), and managed to make it to age 22 as a virgin.

Even though I'm an atheist, and even though I know the arguments against premarital sex or biological females enjoying sex or anything other than missionary style, through the sheets, with the lights out, involving ONE penis and ONE vagina are all bullshit, I have a tough time with sex. I tend to worry that I think about it too much, or not enough, or that I shouldn't have phone sex, or that I should have more, or that I shouldn't enjoy it, or that she's not enjoying it, or that having sex will fuck up our relationship, or that not having enough will fuck it up, or or or or or.

A tiny part of me still fears that I'm going to burn in Hell for having sex and, you know, enjoying it. Then again, I'm a neurotic Southerner (USA) with a dysfunctional, fundamentalist Christian family that was isolated for 8 years because, in 2nd grade, the school librarian read my class books like "I Have Two Daddies".

I'm not qualified to give a general statement on the state of sexual liberation in modern society, is what I'm saying.

 

[bman804]

I am sexually liberated only in that I really do not care about other people's sex lives. I think just accepting that other people have different attitudes about sex is more important than what you do sexually. As long as it is consensual.

 

[blackrave]

Do you have a vagina? Kegel exercises are to strengthen pelvic muscles, not to keep the vagina from becoming 'loose'. There are things that can weaken the muscles, but these include childbirth, aging, over-large instruments (sex toys, even penises if large enough) and improper use of certain techniques (see: fisting). Also included are things like severe obesity, and some surgeries. Not, however, frequent sex. Kegels are also recommended for people with urinary incontinence, and to help keep men from ejaculating too soon.

Also, just out of curiousity what is your age range for the number of sexual partners? A woman in her 40s is quite likely to have had more than 2 sexual partners in her life, would she be a whore? Why would she be in the same category as a girl in her late teens or early twenties?

Ok, I admit that you might be right on this. (90% hit chance, 4 damage, 15% critical chance)
My knowledge came mostly from women after 30 and with at least 1 kid

My preferred age range is +/-5 years from my own age, so it would be 19-29 years
Why would someone have short-term relationships? It isn't worth the emotional and physical investment.
Also I forgot to mention one thing. All these numbers are for a decade. Of course after 30 years of active sexual live one would have much more than 5 partners.

wow....can you see mount Everest from that hoarse your on?

my issue here is that you are SERIOUSLY and utterly convinced your moral standpoint here is absolutely 100% correct

its one thing to go out every night and fuck everything that moves (which I wouldn't consider healthy and I would question the character of someone like that HOWEVER in the end it is their right to do so and I don;t see the act of sex itself to be immoral...regardless of weather or not its with a spouse or a one night stand)

I'm pretty sure you meant "horse" not "hoarse"
There is nothing wrong in having high moral standards as long as you yourself follow them.
And what's wrong in expecting similar standards from your partner?

Well of course YOU don't, but I'm not you :/


[quote/]....0_0....dear god....no wonder your having trouble (not a personal attack just an assumption on my part)..this is ridiculous

2? kind of promiscuous..so lets say I had a boyfriend once when I was 18 and we did it..but then it wasnt working out so we broke up....a year later I have another boyfriend..relationship last for 2 years before we mutually break it off...acording to you thats [i/]kind of promiscuous?[/i]..no...its not thats actually pretty friggen modest

3-5? after a certain time most people could have that amount of relationships...and thats slutty?...dear god

also a whore is somone who is paid...I find refering to women as a whore outside of the actual meaning kind of sexist (just my opinion of coarse) [/quote]

I already previously mentioned that I meant it in decade (just forgot to write it down)
It is a rule of hand for me- if I can't count all your previous partners in last 10 years on one hand, than you have no chance with me. And the more total number is closer to zero the better.

Also people have tendency to mistake words "prostitute" and "whore"
Prostitute is a person who provides sexual services for money
Whore is a person who often changes sexual partners
Prostitute=/=whore

Lastly, can you explain me calling woman a whore is sexist?
Because calling man a whore isn't sexist, but as soon as I call woman a whore I'm suddenly chauvinist?
Such double standard itself is sexist.


[quote/]
its fucking myth..or at least not as bad as your making it out to be
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/a_few_choice_words_about_tightness
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/lets_let_this_be_the_last_word_on_worn_out_vaginas_shall_we[/quote]

Again I previously mentioned that my information regarding that matter came from older women with kids, so I might be slightly wrong here.

But thanks for the links, especially second one, they were entertaining

 

[Vault101]

Ok, I admit that you might be right on this. (90% hit chance, 4 damage, 15% critical chance)
My knowledge came mostly from women after 30 and with at least 1 kid

it pays to know thease things before you start judging people on them.....

[quote/]
Why would someone have short-term relationships? It isn't worth the emotional and physical investment. [/quote]
[quote/]There is nothing wrong in having high moral standards as long as you yourself follow them.
And what's wrong in expecting similar standards from your partner?[/quote]
to answer that....
see my problem with the first statement is not just an inability to understand others peoples reasons/motivations (ok we all get that somtimes) but that coupled with some pretty..strange "moral" standards is setting yourself up for disappointment, not saying you can;t have standards but at least trying to understand other people and re-thinking thease things is agood somtimes, especially if you are finding yourself unsuccessful

that and you think less of people for not having the same moral standards as you...on an issue that is not as cut/dry as you make it out to be (unlike murder or theft)

[quote/]
I already previously mentioned that I meant it in decade (just forgot to write it down)
It is a rule of hand for me- if I can't count all your previous partners in last 10 years on one hand, than you have no chance with me. And the more total number is closer to zero the better.[/quote]
a decade?.....yeeeeeeaaaah my initial reaction remains the same...I mean WHAT? 2 parters in 10 years is "kind of promiscious" as you put it? HAHAHAHAHA oh lawd *shakes head* 5 partners in 10 years isn't even *that* bad if your not counting casual encounters


[quote/]Lastly, can you explain me calling woman a whore is sexist?
Because calling man a whore isn't sexist, but as soon as I call woman a whore I'm suddenly chauvinist?
Such double standard itself is sexist.[/quote]

its not per'se. Just one of those uses of words and casual attitude that raises little flags,

kind of like...

[quote/]As for "liberated" girls, you can be as "liberated" as you want, just somewhere far away from me.[/quote]
so you meet a nice girl...but then find out she's been with a few people...then you wouldnt want anything to do with her?...I do hope you only mean that in a relationship context..and not everyday life (dare I ak)

[quote/]"No, the fact that you treat sex as some sort of sport, doesn't make you right. You know that eventually you'll have sack instead of vagina, right?"[/quote]

little spiteful dont'cha think?


if I were to go there I do find it carries more weight when applied to females than to males even if that wasn't your intention...due to our society and how we veiw things (because lets face it...male and females are not interchangeable in the way we view them)



but anyway thats getting off-topic

see I have a problem with mixing sex and morality..it just doesnt make sense to me...I think its absolutely ridiculous to question the moral character of somone based PURELY upon how much sex they have

if you ask me what I think of a girl who sleeps around constantly....well I'd have to know more than that..[i/]sure[/i] I can make some assumptions , which I know is easy to do..we all do that (which may even turn out to be correct) but honestly amount of sex doesn't tell me much....if she's a nice person, if she holds down a job. if she does drugs or steals or anything

quite frankly what we get up to in the bedroom is no ones damn buisness and not somthing we should be judged upon

have you had sex? I mean how do you know it will be any worse if shes been with a few people? how do you know if you enter a seriously relationship that she's going to love any any less?

 

[Hagi]

What woman wants? To fuck strongest, meanest male and then raise that child with some nice and friendly wimp.
What man wants? To fuck as many females as possible.
Reproductive instincts 101, people.

I think my instincts and those of the majority of people might be broken...

Just the other day I was walking through town, seeing plenty of females around, and found myself strangely unaroused. Not a single cell in my body was screaming at me to fuck all those women. I just walked there... seeing all those women... and nothing... no enraged lust, no massive erection... I just walked...

And then I got home, opened up the paper, and read this column from a woman complaining about sexual harassment. I mean can you imagine? There she is and this big strong man is proposing sex in the meanest way possible and she's strangely not feeling any lust at all. She should obviously be massively aroused, held back only by her strong moral convictions. But apparently all she felt was anger, how fucked up is that?

One would almost imagine that the 'instincts' you propose merely reflect the actions of a mostly harmless minority and that most people are in fact perfectly capable of enjoying sex responsibly and appropriately without the need for a harsh judgemental morality to counteract the otherwise uncontrollable lusts that plague the depravity that is humankind.

But that can't be... We obviously need to insult people who've had multiple sexual partners in their past by calling them whores and sluts. Without such condemnations everyone would clearly be ruled solely by their animal lusts and society itself would crumble. Thank god we have people like you, ready to pounce on anyone thinking about enjoying sex for the act itself. You sir are the only thing standing between a civilized society and massive depraved orgies in the middle of the street.

 

[AngloDoom]

I've never really felt as if anything to do with sex was 'off-limits' to me. Age fourteen most of the people I knew were regularly having sex without any kind of backlash. I've had access to pornography pretty much just as I hit puberty and I've been in highly passionate and loving sexual relationships as well as having sex just for funsies.

That said, I know that it's pretty much all to do with the fact that I'm male. Hell, most women I know are still uncomfortable even admitting they've masturbated or even looked at porn but people will quite naturally assume a male regularly does both.

My sexuality has never ever felt suppressed by anything other than my own looks and personality but I would certainly say that there is a lot more to consider if you happen to have a vagina rather than a penis.

 

[blackrave]

to answer that....
see my problem with the first statement is not just an inability to understand others peoples reasons/motivations (ok we all get that sometimes) but that coupled with some pretty..strange "moral" standards is setting yourself up for disappointment, not saying you can;t have standards but at least trying to understand other people and re-thinking these things is good sometimes, especially if you are finding yourself unsuccessful

that and you think less of people for not having the same moral standards as you...on an issue that is not as cut/dry as you make it out to be (unlike murder or theft)

Understanding and supporting aren't the same things
I really do understand that having any freedom is awesome
But there is such a thing as "too much freedom" and in this context I feel that our culture is at this point right now.


[quote/]
a decade?.....yeeeeeeaaaah my initial reaction remains the same...I mean WHAT? 2 partners in 10 years is "kind of promiscuous" as you put it? HAHAHAHAHA oh lawd *shakes head* 5 partners in 10 years isn't even *that* bad if your not counting casual encounters[/quote]

But I am. Casual encounters and one night stands are sexual contacts too.
The very term "casual encounter" is insulting for me
There isn't anything "casual" about sexual relationship, there shouldn't be anything "casual" about it.
But I think this is the argument in which we won't be able to come to some sort of compromise.


[quote/]so you meet a nice girl...but then find out she's been with a few people...then you wouldn't want anything to do with her?...I do hope you only mean that in a relationship context..and not everyday life (dare I ak)[/quote]

Pretty much yes, been there, done that.
I simply cannot build long term romantic relationship with someone who don't share my beliefs on this matter


[quote/]little spiteful dont'cha think?

see I have a problem with mixing sex and morality..it just doesn't make sense to me...I think its absolutely ridiculous to question the moral character of someone based PURELY upon how much sex they have

if you ask me what I think of a girl who sleeps around constantly....well I'd have to know more than that..[i/]sure[/i] I can make some assumptions , which I know is easy to do..we all do that (which may even turn out to be correct) but honestly amount of sex doesn't tell me much....if she's a nice person, if she holds down a job. if she does drugs or steals or anything

quite frankly what we get up to in the bedroom is no ones damn business and not something we should be judged upon

have you had sex? I mean how do you know it will be any worse if shes been with a few people? how do you know if you enter a seriously relationship that she's going to love any less?[/quote]

Yeah, my sister was ignoring me for a week after that dialogue. :/

Really? I need to explain even this?
Ok, "amoral" in sexual discussion means different things than it usually means.
Of course having multiple partners doesn't make you neonazi sympathizer or pedophilia supporter.
Same as having high moral stand about sexual relationship doesn't mean you aren't racist or cannibal.
Moral isn't always moral, and amoral isn't always amoral.
(I don't know how better put this, so I hope you understand what I mean)

Anyway, it is good to expect not to be judged upon, except people are being jugged by other people, based on everything all the time. And same people are judging other people about anything all the time.
Not in a manner of getting pitchforks, torches and lynching someone, no. I mean that ANY information is piece of puzzle, to put together and make a picture of someone in your head. If you find some piece of information that doesn't fit in overall picture, you don't force it into picture and you don't ignore it, you should put it aside for a while- maybe after few more facts, you will find how it fits in.

And of course it isn't no ones business what you do in your bed. UNTIL you're approaching me with romantic intentions. Then it becomes MY GODDAMN BUSINESS, and if I don't like the state of business you won't get past "friend" status. Simple as that.
Is this principle making my life hard? Yes, but I won't drop this only because of some inconveniences.

I think my instincts and those of the majority of people might be broken...

Just the other day I was walking through town, seeing plenty of females around, and found myself strangely unaroused. Not a single cell in my body was screaming at me to fuck all those women. I just walked there... seeing all those women... and nothing... no enraged lust, no massive erection... I just walked...

And then I got home, opened up the paper, and read this column from a woman complaining about sexual harassment. I mean can you imagine? There she is and this big strong man is proposing sex in the meanest way possible and she's strangely not feeling any lust at all. She should obviously be massively aroused, held back only by her strong moral convictions. But apparently all she felt was anger, how fucked up is that?

One would almost imagine that the 'instincts' you propose merely reflect the actions of a mostly harmless minority and that most people are in fact perfectly capable of enjoying sex responsibly and appropriately without the need for a harsh judgemental morality to counteract the otherwise uncontrollable lusts that plague the depravity that is humankind.

But that can't be... We obviously need to insult people who've had multiple sexual partners in their past by calling them whores and sluts. Without such condemnations everyone would clearly be ruled solely by their animal lusts and society itself would crumble. Thank god we have people like you, ready to pounce on anyone thinking about enjoying sex for the act itself. You sir are the only thing standing between a civilized society and massive depraved orgies in the middle of the street.

Getting a little defensive aren't we >
Instincts can be suppressed by education and culture, true
But in the end of a day they are still there and you cannot get rid of it

P.S.And yes, I consider myself last bastion of morality, thank you for noticing, good sir.

 

[Vault101]

Understanding and supporting aren't the same things
I really do understand that having any freedom is awesome
But there is such a thing as "too much freedom" and in this context I feel that our culture is at this point right now.

no....I dont think you do understand...have you had sex before?

regardless you don't understand that sex Isn't the same for everyone, much like other kinds of expereinces it can be different and mean different things....you can't get it through your little head that sex may in fact simply be a pleasurable activity for some...this bothers you....for some reason... you don;t understand that your beliefs in sex are not universal for everyone


[quote/]
But I am. Casual encounters and one night stands are sexual contacts too.
The very term "casual encounter" is insulting for me
There isn't anything "casual" about sexual relationship, there shouldn't be anything "casual" about it.
[/quote]
to me its similar to you saying "video games are MENT to be played with others...its just plain wrong some people play by themselves"

again this is just you [b/]not getting it[/b] I'm nit saying you have to agree with casual sexual encounters but your not even fucking TRYING to understand that not everyone believes the same things you do.....and that is somthing I actually find insulting


[quote/]
Pretty much yes, been there, done that.
I simply cannot build long term romantic relationship with someone who don't share my beliefs on this matter[/quote]

fine....just don;t think you can go around applying such standards to EVERYONE you have to interact with on a day-to-day basis


[quote/]
Really? I need to explain even this?
Ok, "amoral" in sexual discussion means different things than it usually means.
Of course having multiple partners doesn't make you neonazi sympathizer or pedophilia supporter.
Same as having high moral stand about sexual relationship doesn't mean you aren't racist or cannibal.
Moral isn't always moral, and amoral isn't always amoral.
(I don't know how better put this, so I hope you understand what I mean)[/quote]
fine...but I still find it a little jerkish to tromp around acting high and mighty on somthing you seem to know little about (mabye you do, its just the impression I'm getting and often a trait of people like you)

[quote/]I mean that ANY information is piece of puzzle, to put together and make a picture of someone in your head. If you find some piece of information that doesn't fit in overall picture, you don't force it into picture and you don't ignore it, you should put it aside for a while- maybe after few more facts, you will find how it fits in.[/quote]
what...you simply cannot accept that somone likes to indulge in sex? you can't just accept it...you think less of them?

[quote/]
Is this principle making my life hard? Yes, but I won't drop this only because of some inconveniences.[/quote]
I dont think its a healthy attitude

[quote/]
Getting a little defensive aren't we >
[/quote]
pointing out somone saying somthign stupid is not defensive...of coarse acusing the other person of being defensive is somthing of a cheap attack

[quote/]P.S.And yes, I consider myself last bastion of morality, thank you for noticing, good sir.[/quote]
judgmental and close minded veiws....yes quite a beacon/sarcasm

 

[Hagi]

Getting a little defensive aren't we >
Instincts can be suppressed by education and culture, true
But in the end of a day they are still there and you cannot get rid of it

Really? You think culture and education is all that stands between men attempting to fuck every woman in sight and women spreading their legs for every man asserting his dominance?

No species with instincts that ludicrous could even begin to develop the very basics of any kind of culture or education, let alone hope to survive.

Do we have a sex drive? Yes.
Is that drive relentlessly pushing men to impregnate every woman they know and pushing woman to seek out the most brutal partners? Hell no.

If you feel you're going against your instincts by experiencing sex only in a loving intimate relationship then that's your problem. Don't blame it on the rest of humanity.

 

[Angie7F]

As much as i believe that sexual liberation is good, I just don't know how far it should go.
Do we ultimately go to a stage where you can have sex wherever and when ever we want because that is just nature, or is certain restraints still necessary?
I mean, the concept is attractive but it is a slippery slope.
For now I am quite happy with what I have now.

 

[Nickolai77]

When I think of history (and as a history major, I can think of A LOT of history), I can think of no other period of time where sex supposedly played such a crucial role in a society yet was so unattainable, so completely pointless, and so alienating.

The irony of the modern "sexual liberation movement" is that it may have, in fact, caused the opposite to occur by making us sexual slaves, inept at having successful, meaningful relationships.

I could go on about my point, and feel free to argue, but Idk... I'm not feeling the "liberation."

It might be possible to speculate that people living in the past, before the age of mass media, were in some ways more liberated than people today. What i think's happened is that mass media- in the form of pop music, magazines and romance-flicks, has set a sort of universal standard as to how dating works and what peoples sexual expectations are. Before mass-media, romance wouldn't have been institutionalised, peoples expectations as to how people fall into relationships would have been largely based around the experience of their friends and advise from the family. So in some ways, without mass media setting overly idealistic standards of romantic behaviours and physical appearance, people may well have been freer to form relationships in ways that suited them. Sex however's a bit different, we know that the Church governed all sorts of expectations as to how and when sex should be done. But you could argue mass media's doing exactly the same thing, only it's advocating how and when people should have sex in a radically different way.

Anyway, this is just a hypothesis i've come up with off the bat. Still, i feel that mass media does little to sexually liberate us- if anything, it oppresses us by espousing a certain narrative as to how relationships should be formed and setting fantasied standards of beauty that can't be fully realised in the real world.

 

[blackrave]

snip

I was about to write something horribly rational, but then I realized that we will never meet and I don't care how you evaluate this topic and I'm sure you too pretty much don't care what I think about all this, so I think we should just stop this argument, otherwise we will circle around for a few more days.

Also I realized that you took this
[quote/]P.S.And yes, I consider myself last bastion of morality, thank you for noticing, good sir.[/quote]
seriously, so here is a few disclaimers: No, I don't consider myself as some sort of righteous pillar of rationality and moral. No, I don't think everyone need to follow my mentality (but it would be awesome to see at least few). No, I'm not some sort of religious puritanical nutcase, who thinks that genitals are made by devil and if you rub them you will go to hell. No, I don't think that sex is some sort of magical mental merging experience (but I would like if people would appreciate intimacy a little more). And no, the fact that you disagree doesn't make you wrong. No, I never had sexual experience (believe it or not, but monogamy isn't some crazy idea, it actually makes sense). And yes, I might be totally fucked up, but this is my burden to carry, and did you ever thought that maybe giving in your every wish and desire might be as "unhealthy" as suppressing most of them?.

Really? You think culture and education is all that stands between men attempting to fuck every woman in sight and women spreading their legs for every man asserting his dominance

Do we have a sex drive? Yes.
Is that drive relentlessly pushing men to impregnate every woman they know and pushing woman to seek out the most brutal partners? Hell no.

Yes I pretty much believe that only thing that stands between our instincts and civilized behavior is education and culture. Also common sense.

Now be fair. If you had chance to impregnate multiple women without responsibilities or consequences, like some sort of Genghis Khan. Every week a new beautiful woman to impregnate and you can do it freely, nobody will judge you. And you wouldn't do this? You would just say "no"?
Don't write the same moment you read this! Sit a few minutes, think about this really good, dig into deeper layers of your own personality. Then answer.
Ok, you may answer "no", then second question: Would you like to do this?
You can skip this answer, since it is pretty obvious.

 

[Hagi]

Yes I pretty much believe that only thing that stands between our instincts and civilized behavior is education and culture. Also common sense.

Now be fair. If you had chance to impregnate multiple women without responsibilities or consequences, like some sort of Genghis Khan. Every week a new beautiful woman to impregnate and you can do it freely, nobody will judge you. And you wouldn't do this? You would just say "no"?
Don't write the same moment you read this! Sit a few minutes, think about this really good, dig into deeper layers of your own personality. Then answer.
Ok, you may answer "no", then second question: Would you like to do this?
You can skip this answer, since it is pretty obvious.

I would say no. And I would not like to do this.

I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally.

That it was my instincts tell me.

I do not desire to fuck and impregnate an endless string of faceless and nameless women as apparently your instincts tell you.

You should not project your desires and instincts on everybody else. They are yours and yours alone.

I've got my possessive streak. You've got your fantasies of promiscuity. We're all slightly fucked up. But all in our own unique way. And that's completely fine, nothing amoral about it, as long as we respect each other's differences (within the bounds of the law of course).

 

[blackrave]

I would say no. And I would not like to do this.

I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally.

That it was my instincts tell me.

I do not desire to fuck and impregnate an endless string of faceless and nameless women as apparently your instincts tell you.

You should not project your desires and instincts on everybody else. They are yours and yours alone.

I've got my possessive streak. You've got your fantasies of promiscuity. We're all slightly fucked up. But all in our own unique way. And that's completely fine, nothing amoral about it, as long as we respect each other's differences (within the bounds of the law of course).

Nope, sorry, once again let me pull my bullish card on this.
But I admit that I must explain this thing a bit more.
Man's main urge is to make sure his DNA survives. At first it is survival instinct (if you die your genetic material stops here). Then survival instinct morphs into urge to reproduce (you will eventually die anyway, so only way to ensure survival of your genetic material is to have as much and as successful offsprings as possible) and it dominates survival instincts (people may do stupid and dangerous things to attract mate or several).
Of course there are layers upon layers upon layers of other stuff on these instincts. And these layers make their own modifications upon this main urge.
And few layers later we get: "I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally."
Why? By want to posses woman, you try to ensure that she won't cheat on you, and you won't end up raising kids of other males, but having as much your own kids as possible to raise properly. Because if you'll have too few kids, it will be wasted opportunity, if you'll have too much kids, you won't be able to ensure best upbringing for them, and there will be high chance they will end up subpar in comparison with other people. So if you would have chance to ensure that these multiple kids from multiple women would have top-notch upbringing, you may reconsider your answer (most probably you would still say "no", but at least you would admit this idea is tempting). Of course your brain masks this stuff by telling that it is actually because you are a nice guy who wants to appreciate your woman, you want to live in harmony and loving relationship, and blablabla. But truth is that all this romantic novel material is dictated by and serves to your survival instinct.
Everyone who claims that "oh, I'm not like that" is full of shit and denial
Your cultural upbringing and education can mask it, but this stuff is inside you and it dictates more of your behavior than you may think.
I don't know your education or interests, I don't know how much you know about ethology, so before arguing that I don't know anything, invest in some self-education on this topic, read some smart books or few articles about ethology and instincts.

 

[bulbasaur765]

I don't think sexual liberation has really affected my libido's behavior, but I think I feel more comfortable thinking/talking about sexual activity prior to about half a decade ago.

 

[maninahat]

Women's sexuality is still seen as something as an oddity, whereas male sexuality is just a given. For instance, take 50 Shades of Grey: It is essentially pornography, but being a mainstream book aimed at women, it is seen as a harmless novelty. That's why it gets classy looking covers and pole position on the fiction shelves, instead of being relegated to the top shelf of service station book store, along with all the other tacky porn.

I'm okay with it really - it's just a step towards accepting that women like sex, which is (sadly) still seen as remarkable.

 

[Easton Dark]

I'm okay with it really - it's just a step towards accepting that women like sex, which is (sadly) still seen as remarkable.

It was also seen as remarkable on the news a few years ago that "More women are working now and some men stay home and do the dishes and stuff".

We'll get there eventually.

 

[HalfTangible]

Sexual liberation seems to focus on female sexuality, though you know, males are more sexually liberated now too. Not just gay guys, guys in general are free to enjoy whatever sort of sexual adventures they want legally - with some exceptions. Sexuality has a deeper psychological meaning and it's transcended well beyond procreation and well, it has a whole different purpose now, as 99% recreational activity. And that's awesome.

So, my question for all genders, sexualities, and species is, do you feel sexually liberated? Is that important to you?

My humanities teacher once said that the male of the western world is the most screwed up psychology on the face of the planet. According to her this is because while restrictions on female sexuality are rather loose a man's is ridiculously tight. (meaning that a woman can walk down the street in guy's clothes without being called a lesbian as long as you can tell she's a girl, but a guy in a dress is likely to get the s*** beat out of him if anyone even BEGINS to think 'that's a guy!')

... Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing =/

It's not really important to me personally (I'm celibate) but sexual liberation strikes me as utter bullcrap. It's been stated that previous generations have been FAR more sexual and lecherous than ours - we're just more open about it.

(Seriously. It's kind of amazing how much back-alley sex went on in an era that believed sex was supposed to be about chastity, monogamy and purity)

 

[Hagi]

I would say no. And I would not like to do this.

I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally.

That it was my instincts tell me.

I do not desire to fuck and impregnate an endless string of faceless and nameless women as apparently your instincts tell you.

You should not project your desires and instincts on everybody else. They are yours and yours alone.

I've got my possessive streak. You've got your fantasies of promiscuity. We're all slightly fucked up. But all in our own unique way. And that's completely fine, nothing amoral about it, as long as we respect each other's differences (within the bounds of the law of course).

Nope, sorry, once again let me pull my bullish card on this.
But I admit that I must explain this thing a bit more.
Man's main urge is to make sure his DNA survives. At first it is survival instinct (if you die your genetic material stops here). Then survival instinct morphs into urge to reproduce (you will eventually die anyway, so only way to ensure survival of your genetic material is to have as much and as successful offsprings as possible) and it dominates survival instincts (people may do stupid and dangerous things to attract mate or several).
Of course there are layers upon layers upon layers of other stuff on these instincts. And these layers make their own modifications upon this main urge.
And few layers later we get: "I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally."
Why? By want to posses woman, you try to ensure that she won't cheat on you, and you won't end up raising kids of other males, but having as much your own kids as possible to raise properly. Because if you'll have too few kids, it will be wasted opportunity, if you'll have too much kids, you won't be able to ensure best upbringing for them, and there will be high chance they will end up subpar in comparison with other people. So if you would have chance to ensure that these multiple kids from multiple women would have top-notch upbringing, you may reconsider your answer (most probably you would still say "no", but at least you would admit this idea is tempting). Of course your brain masks this stuff by telling that it is actually because you are a nice guy who wants to appreciate your woman, you want to live in harmony and loving relationship, and blablabla. But truth is that all this romantic novel material is dictated by and serves to your survival instinct.
Everyone who claims that "oh, I'm not like that" is full of shit and denial
Your cultural upbringing and education can mask it, but this stuff is inside you and it dictates more of your behavior than you may think.
I don't know your education or interests, I don't know how much you know about ethology, so before arguing that I don't know anything, invest in some self-education on this topic, read some smart books or few articles about ethology and instincts.

The idea isn't tempting at all. It's hilarious if anything.

Your entire view of sexuality is hilarious. Your entire view of human psychology is hilarious.

It reeks of pop-psychology and simple easy answers for incredibly complex behaviours. Regarding evolution as some sort of conscious god that shapes species and behaviour so that everything is engineered purely for survival. That our behaviour is somehow consciously designed for procreation and survival. And that by simply thinking logically about how we ourselves would create our own species optimized for survival we can deduce our the reasons behind our own behaviours.

Utterly disregarding that this world is filled with thousands of species that survive and reproduce in the most convoluted and fragile ways imaginable. Evolution and survival instinct simply don't work how you think they do. They weren't engineered. They were accidents that survived. They're filled with inconsistencies, inefficiencies and convoluted methods. Just none of them bad enough to cause extinction. Yet.

Survival instinct isn't a conscious thing that's actively steering our behaviour to what will produce exactly the right number of offspring, expertly calculating and directing to ensure our genes will live on. It doesn't care whether or not those genes carry on, it's incapable of caring.

Individuals and species aren't actively trying to continue their genetic lines, 99,99% of life nor the process of evolution even know what genetic lines are. They're simply doing random shit and the random shit that doesn't die out continues doing that random shit. The only thing that ensures is that from all that random shit there are some parts that in some way lead to just enough procreation to ensure that that specific random shit sticks around and that all the other random shit that's involved isn't quite shitty enough to cause extinction.