Sexual Relationships

[Rolling Thunder]

@lizards : You do realise your entire emotional outlook is rather pathetic, and, instead of being rightfully ashamed, you are actually proud of that? Pray excuse me for being bemused, but I wasn't aware that people were wont to be proud of their failures, particularly in so base an area.

Oh, and it's a documented fact that one-night stands invariably produce bad sex. It's awkward, there's no care or attention given or recieved, and in the end you're lucky is either of you gets an orgasm before the whole thing comes to a messy, cold-sweaty and extremely ugly end. Wheras in a relationship, the sex might start out bad, but it invariably gets better. You learn what she likes, you experiment, try new things, but above all, that level of emotional connection, and comfortable, easy intimacy will make things better. So, yes, lizard, you are rather pathetic.


@Maxthereaper : You know, you can be frighteningly perceptive at times.


On-topic: Look, it's simple. Monogamous relationships are, probably, the way to go. I don't care about the genetic link, and I don't care about 'open' relationships - the reason humans developed the monogamous relationship was because it is the most stable form of long-term relationship.

 

[Caliostro]

My issue is that I'm too uncomfortable letting people in in order to have an emotional relationship.

And this honestly doesn't seem like an issue you should look into to you?

But if I was in one I don't know how comfortable I'd be saying 'I feel I need more out of the physical aspect of our relationship as you're just not satisfying me sexually'. I've got a whole lot of problems, but this isn't one of them. Its not even really an issue, I was wondering though because it seems relationships are shown in a very dim light when it comes to either sexual openness or the frequency of fidelity. So hearing the communities opinions was nice.

The issue here is selection. Imagine you have the money for ONE pair of shoes, just one... You're not going to buy the first you see that look nice on you. You're going to look for those that look perfect and feel perfect. It's amazing how few of us take up that philosophy in something so much more important, like a partner.

To a person to whom sex, fetishisms or sexual openness are important, I think it's silly to not look for that in a partner from the getgo. Can you imagine a relationship between someone who's a complete race car fanatic and someone that doesn't even tolerate them? No. It's ridiculous. Not saying the other person would also have to be a race car fanatic, but they'd have to tolerate race cars at least. The same applies here. If someone loves sex, and different variations of it, I think it's silly to look for a relationship in someone who isn't very open minded about it, so to speak.

That said, open relationships are just a variation of the above. and they work so long as people trust each other, and there's common ground.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No offense, but this is what I think is a problem with modern culture: sex is nothing more than entertainment to us.

Way I see it, sex is supposed to be something enjoyed by two people in a committed, loving relationship. If only people actually did this, a lot of problems would be avoided, and in this case, you wouldn't need to worry about never seeing yourself with only one person because that person would be the only one you would care to have sex with.

The problem I see in modern culture is obsessing over the way things are "supposed" to be. Sex just is, it is only different people who suppose it to be anything other than it actually is, or best if restricted or managed in some way. But there is no "supposed to be" beyond the mere fact that someone supposes something, but such suppositions carry no special value over any other suppositions. What you mention is a supposition I simply do not see the value in. You're saying, essentially, that if people were completely different then they'd be happy to behave completely differently, that is, how you think they should behave. I could just as well say that people should behave like frogs, and they would be very happy to behave like frogs if they were frogs.

Anyway, if I suppose relationships to be a certain way, I'll try it and see if I continue to suppose the same or suppose something different. Purpose exists insofar as individuals create it with regard to people and things. It's an inherently malleable concept. If you suppose a monogamous relationship to be the best sort of relationship, find someone who agrees and try it. If it is good, you'll be a positive example. If it isn't, your experience will serve as a warning to others. Either way, you've served a useful function, and your suppositions may change.

 

[xDarc]

There's nothing to discuss. It's all about whatever works for the individual. Some people can't have successful relationships, some people can have open relationships, some people marry the first person they ever lay and stay together until one of em' dies. There's others who never have any idea what they want and others still who's wants change. People have seen and done it all. People are more than their instincts or bio-chemistry. There's nothing black and white about it.

The discussion should be that society propagates monogamy, marriage and/or children as a one size fits all deal when it clearly isn't.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

There's nothing simple about how the stomach digests food. An explanation of it may seem simple, but that's because it's a simplification. Explanations are, by definition, simplifications. If you don't understand what I mean by this, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

There is nothing simple about the "existence" of a single atom, let alone a molecular structure.

you have NO clue what i'm saying or talking about

go read what i originally wrote and at that point maybe you'll get a clue of what i was saying because at this point you have NO clue what i was saying

 

[Silver]

No, there's nothing unusual about pre-marital or casual sex, and that's a good thing, but sex is still pretty controversial, when it really shouldn't need to be. There's still controversy about polyamourism, about bi- and homosexuality, about people living in non-traditional relationships.

It's "controversial" because it should be and because it has to be. "Free love" is a complete disaster.

Prove it.

You're putting words in my mouth, and I'm guessing you misunderstand me on purpose, to make me look bad, or yourself better.

Don't forget to put on your tinfoil hat when you go outside.

Stick to the subject instead of lowering yourself to personal insults.

Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit in my post, but not by much. Sex is still kept hidden, it's seen as pretty shameful, at least when examined closer than "I scored with a chick last night! Booyah!" or when it doesn't conform to the norm. My point is that there's nothing wrong inherently wrong with sex, especially not with todays technology, when we can treat the diseases we may contract if we're stupid, and prevent the spread of them at all, if we're not, and avoid any unwanted consequences with foolproof methods (with 100% chance of sucess, if we do it correctly).

For someone who is so gung-ho about sex you sure don't know a lot about STDs and birth control.

Which part? A condom, properly used, can't result in a pregnancy, and will prevent STDs. Even if it's improperly used, an abortion will take care of it. If you're careless enough to get a disease, only four of them are incurable. One of them you can get a vaccine for, and then you only need to worry about the others, and two of those can be treated until they no longer matters. Only HIV is still beyond us, and it's rather easy to avoid, if you're not very careless.

How? Why? Where? If you're going to say something like that, back it up.

Single motherhood (i.e. not a nuclear family) has been a societal catastrophe in the US and Britain, and surely many other places. Polygamy is also detrimental to a society. Hard to say anything about gay couples raising children, but on a larger scale that would undoubtedly be a catastrophe too.

Singe motherhood is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with free and uncontroversial sexuality. It's a social issue, and in many cases caused by tradictional, nuclear families that broke apart, or by people who had a lot of issues to begin with.

Polygamy is detrimental? Why? How? Where? Prove it.

Gay couples raising children would be a catastrophe? Why? How? According to studies, gay parents are on average better parents than straight parents, because unlike careless, stupid straight couples, or irresponsible single parents, they never get children unless they're completely prepared for and willing to take care of them. Those children are also better adjusted for society, in general.

 

[tsb247]

I never understood the appeal of open relationships. I also find it funny that very few people consider the dangers of such a thing like, oh... I dunno... STDs and such.

I've been with the same girl for almost two years now, and things just seem to get better as time goes on. The sex seems to evolve - getting more intense and better every time. We have learned what we each like, and we manage to keep things interesting.

From my experience, it is the emotional attachment that forms in a monogamous relationship that makes the sex so good; better than any one-night stand or so-called 'open relationship.'

 

[tsb247]

Polygamy is detrimental? Why? How? Where? Prove it.

Just look at the AIDs pandemic in Africa. That's all the proof one needs. Even condoms aren't a 100% gurantee that diseases won't spread from one person to another. They are roughly 99.9% effective, but only if they are:

A. Used - Far too many people simply don't use them.
B. Put on correctly - Believe it or not, this matters.
C. Not expired - They have an expiration date. After that, the latex begins to break down and becomes very fragile.

There are no gurantees, and too many people are lured into a false sense of security. Polygamy is indeed detrimental, at least in the medical sense. It's a fact, and to deny it is pure ignorance. One can make their odds better, but there is no perfect solution if one is going to have multiple sex partners.

 

[Silver]

Polygamy is detrimental? Why? How? Where? Prove it.

Just look at the AIDs pandemic in Africa. That's all the proof one needs. Even condoms aren't a 100% gurantee that diseases won't spread from one person to another. They are roughly 99.9% effective, but only if they are:

A. Used - Far too many people simply don't use them.
B. Put on correctly - Believe it or not, this matters.
C. Not expired - They have an expiration date. After that, the latex begins to break down and becomes very fragile.

There are no gurantees, and too many people are lured into a false sense of security. Polygamy is indeed detrimental, at least in the medical sense. It's a fact, and to deny it is pure ignorance. One can make their odds better, but there is no perfect solution if one is going to have multiple sex partners.

The problem in Africa isn't polygamy, it's stupid morons clinging to their old traditions and considering those more important than human life. No, I'm not being racist, I'm stating facts.

And condoms, if properly used (as I've already said), are effective enough. As long as they're properly manufactured, and you use them correctly (which you of course can't be sure of), you won't catch disease with them, unless you provoke it in another way.

 

[xDarc]

I never understood the appeal of open relationships. I also find it funny that very few people consider the dangers of such a thing like, oh... I dunno... STDs and such.

I've slept with around 200 people in the Detroit metro area. Worst I got was a little herpes and a little herpes never hurt anyone. After having it for about 4 years now it hardly ever breaks out anymore. So kind of an extreme example and also kind of lucky. But I'll be god damned if I didn't do it all and get away with it.

As Gary Oldman said in The Professional, "-that's why I stopped!"

 

[Eldarion]

I believe in only one partner.

It isn't a question of trust,but loyalty.

 

[tsb247]

The problem in Africa isn't polygamy, it's stupid morons clinging to their old traditions and considering those more important than human life.

Those old traditions often include taking multiple wives. It's not true in every case, but if you look at the social structures present in a lot of societies over there, you will see that polygamy is quite prevalent.

 

[tsb247]

I never understood the appeal of open relationships. I also find it funny that very few people consider the dangers of such a thing like, oh... I dunno... STDs and such.

I've slept with around 200 people in the Detroit metro area. Worst I got was a little herpes and a little herpes never hurt anyone. After having it for about 4 years now it hardly ever breaks out anymore. So kind of an extreme example and also kind of lucky. But I'll be god damned if I didn't do it all and get away with it.

As Gary Oldman said in The Professional, "-that's why I stopped!"

Uhhh... Are you serious? Uhhh... Wow... Hmmm... I'm not sure what to say.

...

...

...

Well, you did just broadcast on the internet a reason why no woman should ever sleep with you again.

... Never had herpes, but I'm sure it's not fun - nor is it good.

 

[Silver]

The problem in Africa isn't polygamy, it's stupid morons clinging to their old traditions and considering those more important than human life.

Those old traditions often include taking multiple wives. It's not true in every case, but if you look at the social structures present in a lot of societies over there, you will see that polygamy is quite prevalent.

Yes, but if someone believes having sex with a virgin is going to cure them of AIDS, if someone reasons that it's better to have 20 kids than preventing AIDS, because then maybe one of them will grow to become an adult, when condoms and sexual education is scoffed at, and women hardly have any rights when it comes to their own bodies, then polygamy isn't the problem.

The same reasoning could lead us to conclude that water is bad to drink. Because, well, a lot of Americans kill each other. And they drink water. Clearly, since water drinking is so prevalent, it has to be connected. There couldn't be other issues at work.

 

[Vet2501]

do what i do 1 night stands

a very simple solution

Yeah, done this before. But I got bored waking up next to some random girl every other weekend. Maybe it's something you grow out of?

Now I actually want something meaningful, and to be able to have a conversation that doesn't start with "Um... what was your name again?" at 11am on saturday.

 

[tsb247]

The same reasoning could lead us to conclude that water is bad to drink. Because, well, a lot of Americans kill each other. And they drink water. Clearly, since water drinking is so prevalent, it has to be connected. There couldn't be other issues at work.

This argument is not only invalid, but it is irrevelant.

The difference is that the issues that you brought up (lack of womens' rights, the belief that sex with a virgin can cure aids, etc.) actually ties in to the argument that polygamy is bad.

You said yourself:

"... if someone believes having sex with a virgin is going to cure them of AIDS, if someone reasons that it's better to have 20 kids than preventing AIDS, because then maybe one of them will grow to become an adult, when condoms and sexual education is scoffed at, and women hardly have any rights when it comes to their own bodies..."

The simple fact is that this indeed does back up the claim that having multiple sex partners (thus polygamy) is a problem.

How many virgins will they have sex with if the first one does not cure them? We both know that none of them will.

How many wives will be taken by one man since they cannot get away and do not have the right to do so? It's part of their culture. Promiscuity is the norm and thus, the problem.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-08-30-un-says-polygamy-main-driver-of-aids-in-swaziland
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-16-voa47.cfm?moddate=2007-02-16
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4242530.stm

Go ahead and keep believing sleeping around is not a danger to anyones' health. Whatever helps you sleep at night. You may want to go have a blood test when you wake up.

 

[Silver]

First off, I'm mainly supporting polyamouros relationships, rather than polygamy (but I have no problem with either).

Secondly, it's not the fact that they have multiple sexual partners that the problems, but HOW they do it. There's a lot less AIDS in the western world, despite people like xDarc (if you choose to believe his claim). He was careless, and got herpes, sure. But if people just know what they're doing, multiple sexual partners isn't a problem. It's the culture down there, the whole thing, not just the polygamy, that's fucked up, and needs fixing.

Basically, it's having unprotected sex with people with HIV with no regard for the consequences, and then having unprotected sex with other people that spread it, not people having multiple sexual partners. There's a huge difference.

 

[Dark Prophet]

A thought: Life is not porn. Polygamy almost never works in real life A second thought: People while being animals in general, are not beasts. Why do I have to fuck 10 different women, I'm not a monkey or a lion whos status is measured by the number of females it fucks.
And those of u who go with the sex with the same person is boring bullshit, most of u have not even lived with one person long enough for a proper sex-life to get boring. Maybe the problem is u, maybe u should take time to build up a proper relationship instead of fucking around like bloody chimps.
And a third thought: Have u any idea how easy it is to get some or several venereal diseases by having an open relationship.

 

[Sad Robot]

There's nothing simple about how the stomach digests food. An explanation of it may seem simple, but that's because it's a simplification. Explanations are, by definition, simplifications. If you don't understand what I mean by this, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

There is nothing simple about the "existence" of a single atom, let alone a molecular structure.

you have NO clue what i'm saying or talking about

go read what i originally wrote and at that point maybe you'll get a clue of what i was saying because at this point you have NO clue what i was saying

Please explain it to me then. I ought to understand it if it's so simple after all.

I think you're talking about something entirely different, though. I'm arguing the complexity of reality in relation to the notions of them we base our language on. What we call an "atom" isn't an atom but a simplification, a notion, an approximation of the truth, because that's the nature of science. You really slept through those classes, didn't you?

 

[EeveeElectro]

You sir are obscene, and I feel sorry for you. You're going to be very lonely.
If you ever fall in love, then maybe you'll understand what I experience each day.

<3
ditto to that. Restored my faith in men a little, thank you.

Anyway, I'm not over possessive but I don't want my fella sleeping with other ladies, it would break my heart to think of him with another woman.
Sex is not the most important thing in a relationship regardless of what 13 year old boys say, but it is a very good bonus. Iuno, it feels like we're one person and I feel so close to him. It's hard to explain.
Me and my boyfriend haven't been together for very long, we're past the "crush" stage and sex is still fantastic. If it's getting boring, then that tells you something about your relationship.

You'll find someone one day, don't worry.