|
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
Let's do a case study though. A hot/cute stranger girl meets you at a bar/library/etc... She talks to you for a while, you get her name, then she grabs your crotch and whispers in your ear that she wants to fuck you. You have contraceptives.
Oh its on.
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
The way I see it. The pros of abstaining from sex under (sub)optimal conditions are mostly moral.
Morality only exists in the context of human perception. It doesnt actually correlate with anything real ie. Its all in your head.
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
Some people are just raised to not believe that they can follow through with something they don't believe is right.
Save for the obvious risk of disease, for what possible reason could it be wrong for two emotionally mature adults to share in the carnal pleasures of each other's bodies, even if its for only one night ?
Why is it that so called 'conservative' minded people love to think that there is something wrong with wanting to fulfull sexual desire. Sexual desire is a natural product of human physiology, little different from the need to eat.
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
Others go a step further and think that they will go to hell if they do.
Oh for f**k's sake. This medieval nonsense just wont go away.
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
You also maintain a good reputation about yourself.
What a strange culture you must live in. Where im from, if a guy sleeps around alot, he's golden. Guys will be tripping on themselves to buy you beers and make friends with you in the hope that your 'awesomeness' will ruboff. You will never have to pay to go to any of the best parties as there would be no shortage of guys willing to burden themselves with the expense just for the pleasure of basking in your glorious masculine presence in the hopes that it will net them some pussy. Im not exaggerating. This is serious what im saying, ive seen it countless times here.
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
Sleeping around tends to get around pretty quickly.
Again, where im from you better hope it does. No better way to get your own little gang of alpha-males at your beck and call.
On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
You don't risk the chance of impregnating someone and possibly ruining your life.
Ask any parent....they'll tell you that their kids are the best things that ever happened to them even if they had to give up on their dreams for them.
|
Why would I go to a bar/library/etc when I can stay at my house and play StarCraft?
Absolutely not.
|
On June 30 2011 11:46 Kanil wrote:
Why would I go to a bar/library/etc when I can stay at my house and play StarCraft?
Absolutely not.
gg wp lol.
Maybe if I was depressed at that moment, but probably not. I would rather not hook up with a person that way. And the fear of STDs doesn't help much either.
But irl I'm with Kanil. Bar? Library? Girls? Outside world? Fuck that, +2 just finished. I can research extended thermal lance IN THE GAME, thank you very much.
|
On June 30 2011 12:08 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 11:46 Kanil wrote:
Why would I go to a bar/library/etc when I can stay at my house and play StarCraft?
Absolutely not. gg wp lol. Maybe if I was depressed at that moment, but probably not. I would rather not hook up with a person that way. And the fear of STDs doesn't help much either. But irl I'm with Kanil. Bar? Library? Girls? Outside world? Fuck that, +2 just finished. I can research extended thermal lance IN THE GAME, thank you very much.
wp very nice.
|
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.
Agreed completely. Sex with a woman I don't love sounds really boring to be honest. I wouldn't be into at all. I don't get excited from bar skanks so this would easily be a no-go for me.
I'd rather have less sex and find a girl I actually want to be with instead. Definitely not going to happen with the type of woman that does what the OP describes... if you ended up in a relationship, how are you supposed to trust that girl. I've always felt the same way for ending up with a girl you meet that's cheating on her boyfriend and ends up breaking up with him to be with you... no trust at all to be found there.
Either way, I find people put too much importance on sex. It's great if you're in a relationship and it's passionate; otherwise, there's no emotion there (for me at least) with a random girl. Might as well masturbate, at least I can do it the way I like.
I'm 23 and I'm never going to get the point of random sex. Boring and unsatisfying way to live your life. Get a loving girlfriend and start focusing all your extra energy on better things.
(P.S : Chasing around slutty women is not going to get you that great girl).
|
On June 30 2011 08:57 Battleaxe wrote:
Maybe I'm a bitch, or maybe I'm old school, but I actually prefer getting to know someone before I'd engage in intercourse. If I had to put a time on it, I'd probably say it would take like 4-5 dates/hangouts before I'd feel comfortable enough to make the decision engaging in sex would be a good idea.
I've found I tend to get attached rather easily, as I have a quite addictive personality with almost anything.
You're not that old school, you'd do it like a man and dominate that woman if you were.
|
This feels like it should go hand in hand with that other topic that asked about people's experience in the matters they're talking about - I honestly can't help but feel like a lot of people commenting would answer differently if they'd ever been in a relevant situation. And I mean that sincerely and respectfully.
From my own point of view - I'm single and have both a condom and a willing participant of the opposite gender? Absolutely! I'm not even sure how anyone else who's ever been in that situation could ever say anything differently. I feel like sex has been so romanticized in our society that a lot of people are seeing it as something sacred and wonderful - and while that can certainly be the case in some specific situations, there's nothing wrong with getting naked and having a little fun.
(On a side note, I feel the same way about relationships - they're never going to be perfect, and there'll always be stuff you have to work through. And most of the time they don't work out and you'll have to get on with your life til you get to the next one which is (hopefully) better. I think most of the girl blogs on this site would disappear if people just took that to heart.)
|
If a key can open many locks, it's a pretty damn good key.
If a lock can be opened by many keys, it's a pretty shitty lock.
|
FREEAGLELAND26780 Posts
No.
But then again, I'm training to become a monk.
|
On June 30 2011 11:29 SaRrAceN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
The way I see it. The pros of abstaining from sex under (sub)optimal conditions are mostly moral.
Morality only exists in the context of human perception. It doesnt actually correlate with anything real ie. Its all in your head. Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
Some people are just raised to not believe that they can follow through with something they don't believe is right.
Save for the obvious risk of disease, for what possible reason could it be wrong for two emotionally mature adults to share in the carnal pleasures of each other's bodies, even if its for only one night ? Why is it that so called 'conservative' minded people love to think that there is something wrong with wanting to fulfull sexual desire. Sexual desire is a natural product of human physiology, little different from the need to eat.
1). From this point of view I see morality as the basis of one's decision-making process. Sex with said female is an unusual choice prompting one to see where this falls in their process. Two things come to mind - "Do I want to" (physiologically speaking that's probably a "yes") and "Should I do this?" (different for everyone). I'm sure a philosophical debate can rage from here so I'll just leave it at that.
2). Don't forget about the risk of pregnancy. I practically had to raise my youngest brother and doing anything that would cause me to reproduce (no matter how remote) weighs heavy on my mind even if we're mostly undressed and she's begging me (which has happened about 5 times - and she cried every time I said no despite how much I wanted it). Contraception IS included in the scenario, but I still wouldn't be anywhere close to comfortable. Save for abstaining or surgical removal nothing else has the 100% guarantee. I probably would have been ok with the pill/condom combo, but then a friend beat the odds and now he has a 3-year-old. I don't care about the odds - I'm not rolling the dice.
Those who are conservative about sex feel that way for various reasons. I feel that most of the reasons center around their moral compass (which may or may not say that sex, under given circumstances, is wrong). Whether you agree with it or not, you can't deny that it takes an incredible amount of discipline to tell yourself "no". My morality plays a role, but when it got down to it I said no because I'm not ready to be a parent.
You seriously put eating and sexual desire on the same playing field? I suppose this makes sense once you rationalize everything. Still, without food you die. Passing up an opportunity for sex? Not going to kill you. One must eat often to survive, but one must only reproduce once to continue a species. This sounds like another justification to screw everything that walks, which then falls into someone's moral decision-making process bringing us full circle!
|
You have already voted in this poll.
I don't remember this. But I would say "No".
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
>morality
>implying you aren't evolved apes who are the product of millions of years of fucking girls as soon as you saw them.
>implying the very first thing you think of when you see a girl isn't if shes fuckable and if you'd tell your friends if you fucked her.
>implying your biggest fantasy isn't for some hot girl walking by to firmly grab your package through your jeans.
>implying you haven't masturbated to this very idea, felt a little guilty and then fell asleep without showering.
That poll might be the least accurate piece of information i've ever seen, you are either all liars....or liars. And religion threads are banned on TL which this is quickly turning into - if it continues that way i will close it.
|
On June 30 2011 11:29 SaRrAceN wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
Let's do a case study though. A hot/cute stranger girl meets you at a bar/library/etc... She talks to you for a while, you get her name, then she grabs your crotch and whispers in your ear that she wants to fuck you. You have contraceptives.
Oh its on. On June 30 2011 08:42 obesechicken13 wrote:
The way I see it. The pros of abstaining from sex under (sub)optimal conditions are mostly moral.
Morality only exists in the context of human perception. It doesnt actually correlate with anything real ie. Its all in your head.
I see what you did there 
|
I was playing dragon quest 3 and when I saw this I thought of this thread:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It would completely depend on the girl in my opinion, because there is a big difference between this happening in a library and it happening in a bar. Library, I would probably say yes, bar, I dunno.
|
If I'd be the say no type I'd be almost a decade with no sex now. Sex is sex, love is ... a drug.
|
On June 30 2011 14:05 Servius_Fulvius wrote:
You seriously put eating and sexual desire on the same playing field? I suppose this makes sense once you rationalize everything. Still, without food you die. Passing up an opportunity for sex? Not going to kill you. One must eat often to survive, but one must only reproduce once to continue a species. This sounds like another justification to screw everything that walks, which then falls into someone's moral decision-making process bringing us full circle!
I boldly submit that these two these are in the same playing field. They have a number of things in common.
1) One is no more evil than the other.
2) Both are born of biological necessity. Eating is necessary to obtain energy which by the conservation law cannot be made from nothing so it must be converted from another form to one which can be made use of in the body's metabolic processes. Sex is one link in a long chain of processes made specifically to pass on genes of preferably higher fitness.
3) The compulsion to perform both acts are driven by physiological state changes, a part of which is a psychological change that gives rise to the respective compulsions(basically feeling hungry/horny)
As you can see there is actually nothing here to justify. There is no untruth in what I say. To bring things like morality and justification into this is making something simple unnecessarily complicated.
Simple: You think the girl is hot, the girl thinks you're hot. You are prepared to mitigate the risks with condoms. She agrees. Let nature run its course. You may want to see her again. You may not. Very simple. 
Edit:
On June 30 2011 14:05 Servius_Fulvius wrote:
This sounds like another justification to screw everything that walks, which then falls into someone's moral decision-making process bringing us full circle!
To pound on this point. Who should I have to justify my promiscuity to ? You ? A fellow man ? What arrogance is this that a man should think he deserves my explanation for why I choose to indulge in sexual relations without intent to marry or forming a monogamous relationship. Why should I implicitly allow you to impose your beliefs upon me by acknowledging that I need 'justification' ? Your statement reeks of arrogance. I will never tell anyone that marriage is wrong and your bad/evil/stupid for doing it. Its just another way of life. No man has the right to claim one way is inherently better than the other.
|
The first thing I thought of when I read this was that Chris Rock bit where he says it's impossible for men to turn down sex.
it may not be true for everyone, but probably is for most of us
|
I am stunned by the amount of no's in this thread. Sex is fun, having sex with a lot of women makes you official campus baller, having a scene from a porno unfold in real life is incredibly hot. Hell to the yes.
|
On June 30 2011 20:15 BouBou.865 wrote:
I am stunned by the amount of no's in this thread. Sex is fun, having sex with a lot of women makes you official campus baller, having a scene from a porno unfold in real life is incredibly hot. Hell to the yes.
Dont kid yourself...a lot of people here are in denial. They are in agreement with what you say im sure. Its just that their respective societies have rigidly embedded in their psyches that its wrong to be a little naughty or to want to, the latter most apparent in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h130/Ghinght/dw3/howembarrasing.png)
