|
Ghin please note Servius_Fulvius's response as an example of
what an intelligent response looks like.
Now onto it.
On June 30 2011 23:46 Servius_Fulvius wrote:My claim is that you need to justify your promiscuity to yourself.
Ill admit that it hadn't cross my mind that you were referring to self-justification. My apologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Im not so arrogant yet as to be blind towards my own folly. 
While idea behind your statement was mis-interperted by me, I must state that I still have a problem with the idea of justification, weather its to you, my friends or even myself.
Let me clarify.
You said this:
On June 30 2011 23:46 Servius_Fulvius wrote:
You also brought up contraception a number of times (even casting it as bold in your original reply). Will you make a different decision if the risks are not mitigated? If you will not, then the availability of contraception is your justification for saying "yes".
The definition of justification is, as you say, is 'to show to be just or right'. One can reasonably assume that your speculation on my state of mind would resemble the following:-"This woman is hot and im horny and really want to fuck but somehow its just wrong and risky." Then my subconcious mind begins its marvelous work of self-justification. "Psht...hey you have condoms so its cant be wrong to dive in dude. Condoms make it safe so go for it you pussy."
Now the following is the reality:-
"This woman is hot and im horny and really want to fuck." Notice the absence of the thought of it being wrong hence there is not reason to 'show myself that my intent is just or right'
as per the definition of justification. My next thought would be:-
"Its a done deal but any wierd shit and im out"
Notice my decision making process works as opposite to your speculation. Instead of starting out with the mentality that it shouldnt be done, then convincing myself it should be. I
actually start out fully intended to embrace the moment and it would take some freak circumstance or disturbing realization about this particular situation to dissuade me.
TLDR; There is nothing to justify.
|
On July 01 2011 01:22 SaRrAceN wrote:
Now the following is the reality:-
"This woman is hot and im horny and really want to fuck." Notice the absence of the thought of it being wrong hence there is not reason to 'show myself that my intent is just or right'
as per the definition of justification. My next thought would be:-
"Its a done deal but any wierd shit and im out"
Notice my decision making process works as opposite to your speculation. Instead of starting out with the mentality that it shouldnt be done, then convincing myself it should be. I
actually start out fully intended to embrace the moment and it would take some freak circumstance or disturbing realization about this particular situation to dissuade me.
TLDR; There is nothing to justify.
Actually, the way we think about it is pretty similar. My process would go something like:
"This woman is hot, she's turning me on, and I want to bang her seven ways from Sunday!"
"Where do I set my boundary?"
Setting a boundary doesn't preclude embracing a moment. If the OP's question had been "Would you take her back to your place and start 'rounding the bases'?" my answer would be "yes" barring that nothing happened in between that would convince me she's crazy or that getting physically involved would be a bad idea. Inevitably the question of "to what extent to I round those bases?" comes up and it is here we veer off.
|
On July 01 2011 01:07 Chef wrote:
Doesn't it bring more pleasure if you are with someone you love? Couldn't, arguably, for some people sex with someone they love be more pleasurable if they haven't slept with random women? If it's 100% physical, why not just buy a toy?
u bm nooby
How can sex not be about aesthetics if we are specifically proposing a scenario where the woman is physically attractive? What makes that body attractive? It's meaning we give to the body. If you have the macho philosophy, your idea of a good body is probably whatever most closely resembles the media image of a good looking woman. But what if that's not the only way one comes to find a physical body attractive? For me it's often the other way around. I grow to like the personality, and that's what makes the body attractive, because it belongs to that personality. Some level of compatibility is necessary, but there isn't that much inherently beautiful about a naked body. We give the body meaning. We say this girl's body is not attractive, while this girl's body is. There's so many different types and individual preferences, there aren't many universally attractive qualities, and I believe that's because we learn what is a good looking body, not because the body is good looking by itself.
I agree, you can have more pleasure fucking a girl you love than a random girl, but fucking a random girl is still pleasurable though less than with a girl you love.
GG no re.
|
On June 30 2011 08:44 Chef wrote:
No, I wouldn't. I don't think there is anything intimate about having sex with a stranger, and one coming onto me so aggressively would make me suspicious.
Intimacy and sex are not inseparable.....
|
I would probably say yes, as lets be honest, I'm a man. Man = no self control.
|
On July 01 2011 02:39 Ganjamaster wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 01:07 Chef wrote:
Doesn't it bring more pleasure if you are with someone you love? Couldn't, arguably, for some people sex with someone they love be more pleasurable if they haven't slept with random women? If it's 100% physical, why not just buy a toy?
u bm nooby
How can sex not be about aesthetics if we are specifically proposing a scenario where the woman is physically attractive? What makes that body attractive? It's meaning we give to the body. If you have the macho philosophy, your idea of a good body is probably whatever most closely resembles the media image of a good looking woman. But what if that's not the only way one comes to find a physical body attractive? For me it's often the other way around. I grow to like the personality, and that's what makes the body attractive, because it belongs to that personality. Some level of compatibility is necessary, but there isn't that much inherently beautiful about a naked body. We give the body meaning. We say this girl's body is not attractive, while this girl's body is. There's so many different types and individual preferences, there aren't many universally attractive qualities, and I believe that's because we learn what is a good looking body, not because the body is good looking by itself. I agree, you can have more pleasure fucking a girl you love than a random girl, but fucking a random girl is still pleasurable though less than with a girl you love. GG no re.
I'm genuinely not convinced. Sometimes food tastes good but is depressing to eat by yourself. Your emotions control your ability to enjoy something, despite physical sensation. Sex with a stranger is empty and meaningless and leaves some people feeling hollow and unenthusiastic. Why is that so hard to accept? I LIKE CHERRY JELLO I CANT BELIEVE YOU PREFER LIME THIS IS BULLSHIT GG NORE. Some people can eat social food alone, others can't.
You can say gg all you want, but you're no where close to convincing me. It's not much of a victory to have convinced yourself of your own opinion, but if those are the only victories you find in life I guess that's sad and I'll let you have it.
THE INTERNET.
|
yes. and for the only ultimate reason: one life.
you got a better way to spend a night than with a beautiful woman making love ? i think not.
|
On July 01 2011 03:56 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 02:39 Ganjamaster wrote:On July 01 2011 01:07 Chef wrote:
Doesn't it bring more pleasure if you are with someone you love? Couldn't, arguably, for some people sex with someone they love be more pleasurable if they haven't slept with random women? If it's 100% physical, why not just buy a toy?
u bm nooby
How can sex not be about aesthetics if we are specifically proposing a scenario where the woman is physically attractive? What makes that body attractive? It's meaning we give to the body. If you have the macho philosophy, your idea of a good body is probably whatever most closely resembles the media image of a good looking woman. But what if that's not the only way one comes to find a physical body attractive? For me it's often the other way around. I grow to like the personality, and that's what makes the body attractive, because it belongs to that personality. Some level of compatibility is necessary, but there isn't that much inherently beautiful about a naked body. We give the body meaning. We say this girl's body is not attractive, while this girl's body is. There's so many different types and individual preferences, there aren't many universally attractive qualities, and I believe that's because we learn what is a good looking body, not because the body is good looking by itself. I agree, you can have more pleasure fucking a girl you love than a random girl, but fucking a random girl is still pleasurable though less than with a girl you love. GG no re. I'm genuinely not convinced. Sometimes food tastes good but is depressing to eat by yourself. Your emotions control your ability to enjoy something, despite physical sensation. Sex with a stranger is empty and meaningless and leaves some people feeling hollow and unenthusiastic. Why is that so hard to accept? I LIKE CHERRY JELLO I CANT BELIEVE YOU PREFER LIME THIS IS BULLSHIT GG NORE. Some people can eat social food alone, others can't. You can say gg all you want, but you're no where close to convincing me. It's not much of a victory to have convinced yourself of your own opinion, but if those are the only victories you find in life I guess that's sad and I'll let you have it. THE INTERNET.
The problem with people who hold this opinion is that they cannot discern between casual sex and sex in a relationship (AKA "Fucking vs Making Love"). You propose that since you do not get an equal level of enjoyment from casual sex you should refrain from engaging in it.
Firstly, casual sex and making love are not mutually exclusive. You will not suffer any detriment to your future lovemaking (I say future because your girlfriend/wife etc might be offended should it occur concurrently) from engaging in casual sex. So why not have both?
Secondly, comparing lovemaking to fucking is like comparing apples and pears. They are both fruit, but they do not taste the same. You can not expect to derive the same experience from eating a pear than from eating an apple. In the same way, you "feel hollow and empty" after casual sex because you are expecting bonding etc which are not included in casual sex. This is akin to me expecting to have an apple tasting pear. Take it for what it is, get a kick from the ride and then move on.
SEX FEELS GOOD MAN. GG NO RE.
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
I would absolutely not. I am not motivated in the slightest to sleep with someone who would proposition a random dude like me in a public place, due to the risk of infections.
|
Yes I would. If a hot girl wants to have sex with me, and I'm single, then I don't see why I would decline.
|
During my long stay in the US I was always surprised by the ridiculous fear of Americans in particular towards "infections" and "STDS". It is funny to the extent they let this fear get in the way of actually enjoying life, especially when the large majority of the diseases involved are actually curable.
|
This is in defense of Chef and all the other males who have said "no." Why are they "in denial?"
Just out of curiosity, suppose this poll were rephrased with the gender roles reversed. Attractive man approaches woman. No babies, no disease, no judgment-- no consequences at all. Does she do it? Okay, and more importantly, if she does NOT do it, is that within the possible realm of "normal" or is she denying her "instinctive" urges to be pleasured?
I present this twist because I believe it would be more intuitive for many people here to accept that some of the "she"s out there would NOT find this type of encounter tempting. As far as I recall, evolutionary biologists have made the case that this "choosiness" which is more common in females may have roots in a need to feel secure, protected, and committed-to before being willing to procreate. (And folks, our pleasure in sex has *evolved* because of procreation. The presence of condoms might mean something to our reasoning faculties, but it appears most people here are trying to make arguments related to our basic instincts, and our basic instincts know nothing about contraception.)
I'm no neurobiologist, nor an evolutionary biologist, but this makes sense to me. Our pleasure in sex is similar to our pleasure in eating and being active-- our bodies are chemically set up to reward us for doing things that are "good" for ourselves and our genes. Finding a solid, loving and committed relationship is something that some people see as very good for themselves-- for their security, and the security of their offspring. Most people get chemically rewarded in that type of relationship (seratonin, dopamine, etc). Likewise, the reason we like sex so much is also because we get chemically rewarded. Perhaps those relative rewards are different in different people. Perhaps the triggers for those rewards share a lot of common ground in some people, and therefore, perhaps some people really don't ENJOY sex, and therefore would not pursue it, without knowing, trusting, or respecting their partner. This urge to bond, and to reserve bonding behaviors for situations where actual bonding is likely, is just as much the consequence of a deep-seated biological instinct as the urge to have sex.
So it isn't true that anyone who says "no" to one-night stands is necessarily in denial. Maybe it just doesn't float their boat. The instinctive urge to stay away makes as much sense as the instinctive urge to go for it. If those evolutionary hypothesis about the attractiveness of commitment are correct, then probably it is more common to see situational choosiness (since the candidate is already assumed to be attractive) in females than males. But there can be a spectrum for each gender. My guess is, some men are wired to be choosy, and some men are wired to maximize the number of partners they have, and some men are some of both, and everything in between.
So, summary: just because you'd hit that, doesn't mean anyone who wouldn't is in denial. You just don't see or care about (and maybe don't even experience) the "cons" to this situation the same way and that's fine. We're all different.
Viva le chef and his voice of reason in the face of people who want to tell him how his manhood works!
And viva anyone else who understands that our "caveman/cavewoman" instincts have a biological basis and can be DIFFERENT from person to person.
|
As a molecular biologist with a strong neuroscience background I will provide a counterargument when im off work (or tomorrow) right now I do not have the time. Stay tuned.
|
I think you're missing the point by a couple million light years.
It's not a moral issue, it's a safety issue.
If some very attractive girl comes onto you so strongly at a bar (or library? LOLL OP) making it clear that she wants to fuck you just for one night, GIGANTIMMENSE red signals should be flashing in your head. Very high probably that she has slept around TONS more than you have, and equally high probably of having STDs.
My philosophy has always been that you have to earn sex as men; you have to put in the money, time and effort - there's no any other way. Think of it as an interview process; the 2-8 weeks (or however amounts of time is necessary for you to know and be comfortable with a person) are merely there to screen the other person, making sure that they're healthy and won't infect you the likes of herpes. I mean companies don't just hire random strangers, do they? They interview the applicants to make sure they won't get fucked over in the future. Just as you should interview the person that you're about to put your penis into, so you don't get fucked over a few months from now.
Simple really, I don't know where all the controversy is coming from.
|
Lol, I think I focused on the specifics of the case study too much. The point of the thread was to ask whether you were or would be promiscuous.
I await your post ganjamaster! (still can't believe this blog got this big. Very few one liners too, unlike the general section.)
|
On July 01 2011 06:34 obesechicken13 wrote:
Lol, I think I focused on the specifics of the case study too much. The point of the thread was to ask whether you were or would be promiscuous.
I await your post ganjamaster! (still can't believe this blog got this big. Very few one liners too, unlike the general section.)
Then you need to paint 2 scenarios:
1. Real world: STDs are fair game. Then no, risk/return isn't worth it.
2. World without STDs: fuck yes, pun intended.
|
On July 01 2011 05:29 Ganjamaster wrote:
During my long stay in the US I was always surprised by the ridiculous fear of Americans in particular towards "infections" and "STDS". It is funny to the extent they let this fear get in the way of actually enjoying life, especially when the large majority of the diseases involved are actually curable.
I enjoy my life very much without having to have sex with strangers tyvm. As someone who works near a hospital and sees the number of people who have hep b, HIV, secondary syphilis etc., its not like it doesn't happen. True, a lot of it can be prevented through use of a condom and if that fails, antibiotics can get rid of the bacterial stuff, but isn't that also getting in the way of enjoying life? I definitely get better sex more frequently with a girl I love with the bonus of not having to worry about std's.
|
On July 02 2011 05:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2011 05:29 Ganjamaster wrote:
During my long stay in the US I was always surprised by the ridiculous fear of Americans in particular towards "infections" and "STDS". It is funny to the extent they let this fear get in the way of actually enjoying life, especially when the large majority of the diseases involved are actually curable. I enjoy my life very much without having to have sex with strangers tyvm. As someone who works near a hospital and sees the number of people who have hep b, HIV, secondary syphilis etc., its not like it doesn't happen. True, a lot of it can be prevented through use of a condom and if that fails, antibiotics can get rid of the bacterial stuff, but isn't that also getting in the way of enjoying life? I definitely get better sex more frequently with a girl I love with the bonus of not having to worry about std's.
I have been really busy but I have typed a good post in my home computer with regards to the arguments I said I would address previously, please bear with me.
@ZeaL
If you read my posts carefully you would have noticed that I have stated this does not apply if you are in a relationship. Additionally, the situation provided in the OP utilizes this constraint as well.
And about the better sex, you never know, that assumption is unfounded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
