INTJ's and Sexual Mores

[iamnotspock]

I'm curious what INTJ's feel about current sexual mores. Do you think it's good that sex is less of a big deal than before? That it's often separated from commitment in a "friends with benefits", "one night stand", or "hookup" scenario? And that women are encouraged to have their conquests, too, as in the "Sex In the City" scenario?

[Staralfur]

I think sex should be whatever an individual wants it to be, as long as they respect their partner's wishes. That being said, I see it as a very romantic experience and would most likely want to keep it between myself and my boyfriend (basically fiance) though we have had talk of threesomes and such and I would probably be open to the experience sometime in the future. I do understand how some people can separate love from sex. I also see that a lot of sexual roles given to women vs. men is a result of society's pre-conceived gender roles rather than the innate sexuality that all human beings possess, which I believe is more equal between the sexes than it is made out to be.

[ginandsour]

I dunno how I feel about women doing the "conquest" thing. Not to overgeneralize men, but it's like that joke about how there are no female dirty-phone-callers: it would be too easy.

Woman: "Hey baby, I'm gonna come over there and [you know what I mean]."
Man, after recovering from shock: "...Awesome! Can you call back this time tomorrow??"

I am fairly sexually open, although I can't randomly sleep with people I don't know. No connection = no fun in bed, at least for me.

[Vortex]

Given the highly individualistic nature often common to INTJs, I'd suspect that your answer will be along the lines of "the mores are whatever I decide them to be" :P

As a rule though, they'll probably be more open that most of society, given that we aren't really given to accepting others belief systems for our own.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I have two daughters and I have tried to raise them with certain general ways of thinking about and dealing with the question of sex. I wanted them to be able to see that sex is not the thing they see on t.v., that is to say, it is not this glamorous and romantic thing that hollywood makes it out to be. I also wanted them to view sex with the same sort of respect and dignity as they would.....say......food. In other words sex, like food, can be functional, or heavenly, or exciting, or boring etc. It is a bodily function, but just like food it must be thought about and treated with regard in order to avoid abuse and, therefore, bodily harm.

I taught my daughters that sex is also a psychological thing. We know this because poeple who are abused sexually feel the ramifications for a lifetime. So I believe that sex must be understood as much as possible just like understanding nutritional requirements, or socially acceptable behavior etc. I also believe that sex within a relationship has alot to do with trust within that relationship and this is where questions of manogomy and cheating come in.

Another point I thought was extremely relevant for my daughters was that I taught them to never have sex with someone unless they wanted to. In other words, they should not have sex because they feel pressured by the other person or only to please the other person, but only if they felt they they would enjoy having sex. I realize that this does not neccessarily apply to a more established long-term relationship, but I guess I'll talk to them about that when they cross that bridge.

[PortInStorm]

I feel that there is so much that's not discussed, that's pretty big in my mind when it comes to sex. One is the whole post-coital release of oxytocin that really clouds your genuine feelings about a relationship (I'm not sure how this would play out in a one-night-stand), another are STDs that are not taken care of by condoms (I knew about HPV way before this new vaccine), and lastly the manipulation that surrounds sex, like Vaguely said. It's all fine and dandy to say that you really wanted to have sex with someone, but were they faking affection/care so that you'd want to have sex with them, then follow their lust to the next person because you've been 'had'? I don't at all think this is limited to a particular sex, nor that this happens all the time, but I was really scared of being manipulated and 'used up' as a young adult, not to mention the double standard.

Plus, I worked at a young mothers' home, and saw so much hardship and cruelty towards these girls (plus some kindness, of course). Boys taunting the girls that they'd never make good mothers, that they should've had an abortion etc etc.

A couple of females we know also used pregnancy and children to manipulate the men in their lives, making them miserable for years. I know this is different from sex, but sometimes they would tell the guys they couldn't have kids, or they were taking pills etc.

[Jgib5328]

I honestly think my generation is way too oversexed. All college students do is get drunk and then have sex with each other (generalization, but it happens quite often). It is vile and crude behavior. I look down upon it as being overly animalistic in intent, which repulses me. There is nothing wrong with sex, but doing it all of the time is just hedonism to me. I honestly hate where this society is going. I remember talking to an 8 year old once, when I was about 13 and this was his exact words, "I don't think I'm ready for sex yet, I'll wait until I'm 10"!! This is the future of our society, I know this is just one case, but I've spoken with other kids like this too. I honestly think kids should be more focused on deeper things and develop less egregious hobbies. Whatever, morals don't really exist on a college campus.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I honestly think my generation is way too oversexed. All college students do is get drunk and then have sex with each other (generalization, but it happens quite often). It is vile and crude behavior. I look down upon it as being overly animalistic in intent, which repulses me. There is nothing wrong with sex, but doing it all of the time is just hedonism to me. I honestly hate where this society is going. I remember talking to an 8 year old once, when I was about 13 and this was his exact words, "I don't think I'm ready for sex yet, I'll wait until I'm 10"!! This is the future of our society, I know this is just one case, but I've spoken with other kids like this too. I honestly think kids should be more focused on deeper things and develop less egregious hobbies. Whatever, morals don't really exist on a college campus.
I think it has alot to do with the value society places on sex and the images that the media portrays. This has changed from ultra-conservative, which has it's bad points, to ultra-liberal, which also has a down side. Perhaps the pendulum will stop swinging at some point and society will reflect the same sort of understanding and restraint as it has done with things like healthy eating or exercise.

Until then it appears that it is really up to the parents to teach their children how to fight off things like media influence and peer pressure. In other words, how to stand up for their principles even if they have to go it alone. Like you appear to be doing jgib.

[Jgib5328]

I think it has alot to do with the value society places on sex and the images that the media portrays. This has changed from ultra-conservative, which has it's bad points, to ultra-liberal, which also has a down side. Perhaps the pendulum will stop swinging at some point and society will reflect the same sort of understanding and restraint as it has done with things like healthy eating or exercise.

Until then it appears that it is really up to the parents to teach their children how to fight off things like media influence and peer pressure. In other words, how to stand up for their principles even if they have to go it alone. Like you appear to be doing jgib.

Most people are too weak to be moral and stand up against peer pressure. I'm rare, out of the other people in my age group that I know (I know a lot of people) , I know only 3 other people who have never drank alcohol and a strong majority of the people in my generation have done drugs (mostly marijuana). Nothing really will change because people aren't strong enough to fight against it. I'm probably one of the only people I know that can live by his own individual morals. I really don't see society changing that much, it's going to become increasingly more corrupted by immorality.

[Colette]

My mores on this topic is that I regard sex as a very pleasurable activity, and as a natural and normal part of life - not something to be revered, feared, placed on a pedestal, or reserved for the 'right one'.

Neither however is it something to be thrown around willy-nilly, and with whomever happens to cross my path.

There is a middle ground in there for women (and indeed men, for I make no distinctions in terms of virtue between men and women, depending on what sexual attitudes they adopt), and I believe I'm pretty close to having found this 'middle ground'. I'm happy with it!

[ElstonGunn]

I'm a friggin' Puritan about sex. (Although, I read somewhere that historically speaking, the Puritans could be just as bawdy as the rest of 'em, but the point is that I'm a bit of a prude.) While talking to a female friend of mine awhile ago, I came to the conclusion that I'd be the reverse of the standard stereotype-- a woman would end up pressuring me to have sex, rather than the other way around.

My basic reasoning, aside from the practical considerations (diseases, unwanted pregnancy, etc), is that sex tends to gum up the mental processes that I would rely on in making a decision about whether or not to be with someone in the long term. It's also possible for a lack of sex to have the same effect (i.e., 'horny teenager syndrome'), but personally, I don't run into that problem very often. I have virtually no libido unless I'm already in a solid relationship.

I have no problem with how other people want to view sex, as long as they're not forceful about it. Like this:
I think sex should be whatever an individual wants it to be, as long as they respect their partner's wishes.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Most people are too weak to be moral and stand up against peer pressure. I'm rare, out of the other people in my age group that I know (I know a lot of people) , I know only 3 other people who have never drank alcohol and a strong majority of the people in my generation have done drugs (mostly marijuana). Nothing really will change because people aren't strong enough to fight against it. I'm probably one of the only people I know that can live by his own individual morals. I really don't see society changing that much, it's going to become increasingly more corrupted by immorality.
Perhaps as you look at society through a longer period of time (like when your old) you may decide that things are slowly and inexorably getting better.

[Jgib5328]

Perhaps as you look at society through a longer period of time (like when your old) you may decide that things are slowly and inexorably getting better.

Maybe a bit, but if you look at the patterns throughout history, society has gotten progressively more liberal. There may be small bounce backs to more conservatism, but that never offsets the jump in liberalism. So society continually becomes more liberal. I'm sure something in the future will happen to lead the world back to more conservatism, but it won't last too long because there will be a strong wave of liberalism again.

[Zilal]

I don't think much about sex itself, but I do think people these days are more and more into chasing fleeting sources of pleasure like material goods, sex, etc., rather than investing that energy into relationships. Sex itself doesn't have a special category to me... I consider it just another activity it's best to be thoughtful about, not abuse, etc.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Maybe a bit, but if you look at the patterns throughout history, society has gotten progressively more liberal. There may be small bounce backs to more conservatism, but that never offsets the jump in liberalism. So society continually becomes more liberal. I'm sure something in the future will happen to lead the world back to more conservatism, but it won't last too long because there will be a strong wave of liberalism again.
I think your right. But, I think you and I have different views about what is beneficial to society. I think that a trend toward liberalism is the best thing. However, I also see how going to extremes is harmful. The reason I like the trend toward liberalism is because it jump starts us out of a complacent acceptance of the status quo and makes us use reason and logic rather than tradition to support our opinions and choices.

[Jgib5328]

I think your right. But, I think you and I have different views about what is beneficial to society. I think that a trend toward liberalism is the best thing. However, I also see how going to extremes is harmful. The reason I like the trend toward liberalism is because it jump starts us out of a complacent acceptance of the status quo and makes us use reason and logic rather than tradition to support our opinions and choices.

Oh yeah I mean liberalism definitely is good. If things never changed or became more liberal, we'd all be hunting for our food and using stones as tools. I just strongly dislike forms of extreme liberalism, but I suppose most things that are extreme are bad.

[thod]

Its just a throwback to pre contraception. You granddaughters will be screwing every boy they meet we just need the old generations and their pregnancy thoughts to die off.

Then its going to be lots stroking, licking and the exchange of bodily fluids. I always felt I was born ahead of my time.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Its just a throwback to pre contraception. You granddaughters will be screwing every boy they meet we just need the old generations and their pregnancy thoughts to die off.

Then its going to be lots stroking, licking and the exchange of bodily fluids. I always felt I was born ahead of my time.
You sound like you're very frustrated..............it's good that you at least have this forum as some sort of outlet for your tension. There are alot of good sources for people who cannot connect with the opposite sex. I can let you know how to get some help, if you like.

[thod]

There are alot of good sources for people who cannot connect with the opposite sex. I can let you know how to get some help, if you like.

Ooh please do. But not the over 40s please. I want sex with people half my age not intellectual conversations and saggy bodies. A series of pretty but dumb bimbos suits me fine if you can arrange it.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Ooh please do. But not the over 40s please. I want sex with people half my age not intellectual conversations and saggy bodies. A series of pretty but dumb bimbos suits me fine if you can arrange it.
I can definately arrange some help for you, but I don't know anybody with any sort of body or intellect that you would be able to satisfy (in either regard). I am so sorry for you...........I will keep looking as I'm sure that you continue to desperately do, but when soemone with as little to offer as .........well anyway...........you stay on here and keep venting. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you.

[Colette]

Ooh please do. But not the over 40s please. I want sex with people half my age not intellectual conversations and saggy bodies. A series of pretty but dumb bimbos suits me fine if you can arrange it.

I hear the technology has reached a new level of sophistication in the manufacture of inflatable dummies, these days...;)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I hear the technology has reached a new level of sophistication in the manufacture of inflatable dummies, these days...;)
I imagine the poor little guy is already knee deep ................well sounds like much less than knee deep actually.

[thod]

Ha you love me really, I can always tell. Its simply a defensive reaction the counter stress of the internal attraction and the external rejection to hold yourself in place. Show a bit of muscle and spend a little cash and its knickers off. I cant help being so irresistible to women, I have seen this reaction before.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Ah yes..........I have heard of this famous psychologoical phenomenon the "internal attraction and the external rejection to hold yourself in place" theory........this certainly does show the amount of intellectual muscle you have. I fear the knickers remain secure. Keep trying though.

[PRBori]

Hmm..

Sex to me is something you can have with anyone, so alone it has absolutly no meaning to me. Making love however to someone you feel comfortable with is more like it.

What I'm trying to say is that to have SEX you don't need to know the person or have deep feelings since it doesn't involved anything romantic and is based on taking care of business rather than being romantic.

Making LOVE is more about feeling something for that person and being one soul.

In my case I cannot be with whoever for sex. It needs to be someone special whom I can feel secure that nothing bad will happen and that I can trust. Security to me is more important than sex.

Is not that I don't like sex, for I do, but with the right person who sees it the same way, who shows his feelings for me and loves me for who I am, not just to relax himself.

I can go for years without sex, although this days all you have to do is make a phone call and do it. There is a lot more into a relationship than just sex, and to me other things are much more important at this time than sex itself. If everything else doesn't fit into place, then sex is just sex, and it has no meaning.

Bottom line, I cannot sleep with whoever. I must feel secured, respected, and loved. I must have communication, trust and more important respect not only for ourselves but for our bodies.

Is not time to play around and have sex... to many diceases out there, and the most scary thing is that the ones that can kill you do not show signs right away, it can take years for them to activate...

So HELL NO... sex is not for fun, and hence nobody can influence my views, for I'm have very strong views and a show or someone else is not responsible for my body, I am... so the choices are mine to make...



:)

[Colette]

In my case I cannot be with whoever for sex. It needs to be someone special whom I can feel secure that nothing bad will happen and that I can trust. Security to me is more important than sex.
...
Bottom line, I cannot sleep with whoever. I must feel secured, respected, and loved. I must have communication, trust and more important respect not only for ourselves but for our bodies.

:)

You sure you're not an INFJ? :p

I can do mindless sex, I think, as long as there are no expectations on either side of it developing into anything other than that (and an understanding that both sides can 'walk away' with ego, dignity, and feelings intact).

In most situations that aim is difficult to achieve, but I have found in the past that it works (or can work) with a ST type male. They seem best able to achieve a complete separation between heart/mind, and body, when it comes to sex.

[thod]

I can do mindless sex, I think, as long as there are no expectations on either side of it developing into anything other than that (and an understanding that both sides can 'walk away' with ego, dignity, and feelings intact).

In most situations that aim is difficult to achieve, but I have found in the past that it works (or can work) with a ST type male. They seem best able to achieve a complete separation between heart/mind, and body, when it comes to sex.

Me too. A hooker once asked me if I wanted her to tell me how she loved me whilst I was banging away. It felt weird so I told her to shut up. You can tell them you love them if that turns you on, they don't care. Am I supposed to be feeling some sort of affection for the hooker?

[PRBori]

You sure you're not an INFJ? :p

I can do mindless sex, I think, as long as there are no expectations on either side of it developing into anything other than that (and an understanding that both sides can 'walk away' with ego, dignity, and feelings intact).

In most situations that aim is difficult to achieve, but I have found in the past that it works (or can work) with a ST type male. They seem best able to achieve a complete separation between heart/mind, and body, when it comes to sex.

Hehehe... I guess I'm at a point in my life that I value my body much more... specially because I think about my kids...

I will not lie, I have had sex only for the sake of satisfying myself, but is rare and I don't like it..

:p

[slut poacher]

sex for me, is something to be given and shared. the one night routine is completely unsatisfying. i need a connection with the girl to make it real. despite being an intj, who might be able to rationalize meaningless sex, i prefer to have have some control over my biological imperitive type impulses and would rather remain celibate. (it aint easy) this way i have nothing lurking in my past that could bite me in the ass later on if i should ever meet the right girl. also of note, a small milestone: Feb 12 marked the 2 yr anniversary since i last got laid. (a conscious descision) less than 1 hr ago an exceptionally attractive cougar was looking to take me home, i resisted. ( some slut poacher i am)

[PRBori]

sex for me, is something to be given and shared. the one night routine is completely unsatisfying. i need a connection with the girl to make it real. despite being an intj, who might be able to rationalize meaningless sex, i prefer to have have some control over my biological imperitive type impulses and would rather remain celibate. (it aint easy) this way i have nothing lurking in my past that could bite me in the ass later on if i should ever meet the right girl. also of note, a small milestone: Feb 12 marked the 2 yr anniversary since i last got laid. (a conscious descision) less than 1 hr ago an exceptionally attractive cougar was looking to take me home, i resisted. ( some slut poacher i am)

I feel the same way...

[slut poacher]

you feel the same way because of the moral stance, or because like me you are badly pent up and about to explode?

[PRBori]

you feel the same way because of the moral stance, or because like me you are badly pent up and about to explode?


I feel the same way morally. I'm currently on a long distance relationship and have not being active for 6 months, nor do I want to be. I'm loyal to my men... I will not explode...

RESPECT is of outmost importance to me and yes I expect him to do the same.

[Colette]

Hehehe... I guess I'm at a point in my life that I value my body much more... specially because I think about my kids...

I will not lie, I have had sex only for the sake of satisfying myself, but is rare and I don't like it..

:p

Why does it have to be about 'valuing your body' (and the assumption being that with casual sex, you are not)? I don't really get this attitude - it smacks to me of a woman's sexuality being regarded as some kind of 'treasure chest', to be unlocked only by someone who is deeply in love with her. Why must love and sexuality be conflated in this way? I don't get it..

[JTG]

I just haven't figured out what people see in random hookups personally. I have a difficult time even viewing somebody as attractive until i know and like them. Sure, she can be pretty, or have a great body... but there's more to my end of the attraction than looks.

Friends, on the other hand, i could probably have sex with. Actually most of my female friends i would consider or pursue (conditions allowing) such an arrangement. I wouldn't go after somebody sexually if it carried the risk of complicating things too badly... which is why i've been celibate for two years now, but that's a story for another thread.

[PRBori]

Why does it have to be about 'valuing your body' (and the assumption being that with casual sex, you are not)? I don't really get this attitude - it smacks to me of a woman's sexuality being regarded as some kind of 'treasure chest', to be unlocked only by someone who is deeply in love with her. Why must love and sexuality be conflated in this way? I don't get it..

Hmmm.... let's see... because of AIDS and HIV which is extremely high in the DC area.. Because of HPV which leads to cancer...

Neither of those two STDs can be cure, and both of those can turn deadly. I have 2 beautiful kids that depend on me. Yes, I'm prone to getting HPV anytime since 1 out of 3 women have it and men can carry it without any sort of sign... but at least I'll try to avoid the main one AIDS..

I'm not in for games or playing or anything like that at this point. I rather stay celibate until I die than to get something that will shorten my life span here. Of course death is inevitable and when it comes, there nothing that can be done, but you can take certain steps to avoid some of them.

I guess the main point of a flink relationship and a serious relationship if feeling secure. With a flink relationship either one of you can sleep around with whoever, while on a serious relationship there is more security, because both of you are keeping for each other only. So the Odds of getting an STD are a lot lower...

Besides thruthfully, what's sex without feeling? As a women, I need to feel something, and I want the men to have feelings towards me as well. I've had relationships for just plain sex, but they mean nothing and it doesn't satisfy me as a person... I don't want just sex, it has no meaning to me without all the other qualities..

Does that makes sense to you?

:p

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I just haven't figured out what people see in random hookups personally. I have a difficult time even viewing somebody as attractive until i know and like them. Sure, she can be pretty, or have a great body... but there's more to my end of the attraction than looks.

Friends, on the other hand, i could probably have sex with. Actually most of my female friends i would consider or pursue (conditions allowing) such an arrangement. I wouldn't go after somebody sexually if it carried the risk of complicating things too badly... which is why i've been celibate for two years now, but that's a story for another thread.
I wish you would start that thread..........I spent 6 years celibate and I'd be interested to know what drives people to that particular choice.

[PRBori]

I wish you would start that thread..........I spent 6 years celibate and I'd be interested to know what drives people to that particular choice.

Hmmm... I'm not there yet, but I know that if the relationship I'm now doesn't work, that's it for me and men...

I guess being unable to find that one person that understand you, that you can feel secure and most importantly accept you for who you are makes you take such decisions. I guess what I'm saying is that we tend to get tired of people taking advantage of us and lying to us. We get tired of showing someone how much we care and love them and not receiving the same back. We get tired of getting hurt, because being sentimentally involved with someone for a long time and then breaking up is not easy.

Also, for personal reasons, sometimes something in our life happened that we feel we can handle it anymore, for example getting an STD even though you were very careful in choosing a partner and knowing that if you go out you're risking getting more serious ones will be something that would personnally keep me from going forward into another relationship. For two reasons, because I would hate to re-distribute what I have, and because I'll be afraid of getting something else.


There are many reasons, but I think those are the main ones. For me as a single mom is hard to find someone that will understand my way of thinking, and most importantly, that will accept the fact that I'm a mother and I have two kids.

My kids are important, and whether the person likes it or not, I have to keep communication with fathers, not because I care for them, for honestly I don't but because of the kids.

Bottom line, for the benefit of my kids I would stay alone until I die. My mom did it, she never re-marry or dated anyone from age 26, she's now 53. She just spend her time working hard to raise me and my brother and now she's enjoying life traveling from place to place without anyone telling her what to do. Yes, I'm sure she's lonely to some extend, but she actually married her religion and hangs around her religious budies all the time.

Is all about will power and events that happen in your life that make someone become celibate.

:)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

For me, I think it was because every relationship I got into was a disappointment. People told me that I expected too much and I really did try to expect less. But, it didn't work. So I guess the upshot is that I would rather be alone than settle. It probably has something to do with the INTJ perfectionistic tendancies too.....although I am much less perfectionistic now than ever before.

My current partner seems to be happy to try to make things good. We both are willing to work hard at this.....so I guess that's probably the key for me..........that he's willing to try along with me.

[ElstonGunn]

Is all about will power and events that happen in your life that make someone become celibate.

In my case, willpower has nothing to do with it. If anything, it's a lack of willpower that keeps me celibate. Events in my life play a small role, but it's mostly my total and absolute ineptitude with women that keeps me celibate.

[Colette]

Besides thruthfully, what's sex without feeling? As a women, I need to feel something, and I want the men to have feelings towards me as well. I've had relationships for just plain sex, but they mean nothing and it doesn't satisfy me as a person... I don't want just sex, it has no meaning to me without all the other qualities..


Putting aside the issue of STDs (which imo is a red herring in this debate; for they can occur even in a long term new partnership), I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe sex has to have some kind of 'special meaning' or emotional connotation, over and above the physical act, which can be very satisfying. Sure, it's nice if it's accompanied by love, security, etc etc, but I don't see those as necessary concomitants to the enjoyment of sex (well for me anyway)..

[PRBori]

Putting aside the issue of STDs (which imo is a red herring in this debate; for they can occur even in a long term new partnership), I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe sex has to have some kind of 'special meaning' or emotional connotation, over and above the physical act, which can be very satisfying. Sure, it's nice if it's accompanied by love, security, etc etc, but I don't see those as necessary concomitants to the enjoyment of sex (well for me anyway)..

For me, I have a lot of personnal reasons. In addition, I guess at certain age you kind of start growing up out of it and think more in the future for the kids, not yourself.

And yes, you're right, you can get STDs even in a long term relationship, I never said it wouldn't happen. Even women who had sex for the first time are getting HPV.

Also is OK to agree with the fact that we differ on certain things... is part of the process. After all we must have something that makes us UNIQUE...

;);)

[liger0]

Ooh! Sex: One of my favourite subjects!

I don't really have much (or any) experience in this venue, but I think if your primal urges are telling you "YES! OH GOD YES!" then, by all means, go for it.

It doesn't matter who, when, or even where. As was said before, it's what you make of it. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, is it really of any consequence? Your life will be over in the blink of an eye so it might as well be enjoyable.

Sex boils down to several purposes: Validation, pleasure, ego, and (perhaps) "love". Impersonal or personal, it's all good.

But, don't take my word for it, try it today! Only 10 easy payments of $49.99! Call now and we'll also throw in this complementary toaster!

[PRBori]

Ooh! Sex: One of my favourite subjects!

I don't really have much (or any) experience in this venue, but I think if your primal urges are telling you "YES! OH GOD YES!" then, by all means, go for it.

It doesn't matter who, when, or even where. As was said before, it's what you make of it. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, is it really of any consequence? Your life will be over in the blink of an eye so it might as well be enjoyable.

Sex boils down to several purposes: Validation, pleasure, ego, and (perhaps) "love". Impersonal or personal, it's all good.

But, don't take my word for it, try it today! Only 10 easy payments of $49.99! Call now and we'll also throw in this complementary toaster!

You are silly!!! made me LOL...:thumbsup:

[Colette]

In addition, I guess at certain age you kind of start growing up out of it and think more in the future for the kids, not yourself.


I am 38 - just so ya know ;)

Further, anyone with the cold sore virus (which includes many people in long term relationships) is a potential transmitter of a STI. I'm not sure that those who engage in safe 'casual sex' can be tarred with the STI brush, in the manner you are suggesting..

[PRBori]

I am 38 - just so ya know ;)

Further, anyone with the cold sore virus (which includes many people in long term relationships) is a potential transmitter of a STI. I'm not sure that those who engage in safe 'casual sex' can be tarred with the STI brush, in the manner you are suggesting..

Again, as I said before, I know for a fact that I'm not exempted from getting an STD even on a long term relationship... for most of them don't have signs and most people, specially men don't even know they have it.

I guess is just me, the way I am, the way I see things due to events that happened early in my life...

You just have to learn to disagree on this particular point. I understand you clearly and more power to you... I however have certain views and values that are extremely important to me.

I will be 33 next month, so we're not far apart, and I am in a relationship right now, is long distance, and I haven't seen him for almost 6 months, but I'm a one men gal, so as long as he holds himself, I hold myself just for him.
And if he failed, then I guess I will enter celibate life... again for personnal reasons I rather not discuss...

[Colette]

You just have to learn to disagree on this particular point. I understand you clearly and more power to you... I however have certain views and values that are extremely important to me.


No need to be condescending. I realize that you and I disagree on this issue; I was merely trying to present an argument from some angles you may not have thought about. I have no desire to change your view, or influence your position on the issue in any way.

I just see this 'love is an integral part of sex' view as a form of traditional female stereotyping; and for myself, I don't subscribe to many of those sort of stereotypes. I can enjoy sex without love, or even familiarity. But that's me, not you.

[yondyr]

I would suggest as an alternative to celibacy, trying online sex. Some rare chatrooms provide the opportunity to meet some rather interesting intelligent and humourous people. You do need good chat intuition to winnow out the morons, but I've found it very rewarding. I would have said this is another thread but I'm reluctant to say more since this site has its own chatroom, though obviously not oriented to that type of 'adult' chat.
Of course, some might say that's still celibacy without skin to skin contact, a lot depends upon your imagination.

[PRBori]

I would suggest as an alternative to celibacy, trying online sex. Some rare chatrooms provide the opportunity to meet some rather interesting intelligent and humourous people. You do need good chat intuition to winnow out the morons, but I've found it very rewarding. I would have said this is another thread but I'm reluctant to say more since this site has its own chatroom, though obviously not oriented to that type of 'adult' chat.
Of course, some might say that's still celibacy without skin to skin contact, a lot depends upon your imagination.

I HATE PORNOGRAPHY.... can't deal with it.. I find it degrating.. It degrates women and show's them as animals...

The body is meant to be private, not for sale or showing, and unfortunatedly a lot of those pornography films tend to be women forced to do such things... which to me is RAPE...

Sorry, got to disagree with you very strongly...

[yondyr]

I'm mystified at the jump from online chatroom relationships to pornography. Nowhere did I mention pornography. I question the muddying of the waters.

sighs, I can't let this short answer stand. Some might feel degraded by pornography depending upon their upbringing/orientation/sexual mores. But I should point out that pornography is a business like many others, the merchandise for sale is the man or womans body and were they forced then the law has been broken just as in other violent crime.

But I repeat, pornography was NOT the subject of my initial post.

[slut poacher]

"love is an integral part of sex" is not a traditional female stereotype. it is a choice that is made by a person. men included. for me a unemotional encounter/s (been there) simply doesnt meet the requirements of my most basic needs. those being love and affection. i can go out and get laid anytime (multiple standing offers) or pay for a professional, but busting a nut is far less important to me than being emotionally close to someone. i cant buy love, i cant force someone to care about me, these things have to be earned. it requires a lot more effort, but for me that is what makes it worthwhile.

[PRBori]

I'm mystified at the jump from online chatroom relationships to pornography. Nowhere did I mention pornography. I question the muddying of the waters.

Hmmm.. I guess I considered online sex somehow similar to pornography... Somehow, in my mind that came up... I don't like watching someone elses body unless I know them. Sorry... very old fashion when it comes to this...

Ahh.. and I don't like to chat a lot.. once in a while but not a lot

Either way, I wouldn't even consider it, but thank you anyway..

:)

[Colette]

I HATE PORNOGRAPHY.... can't deal with it.. I find it degrating.. It degrates women and show's them as animals...

The body is meant to be private, not for sale or showing, and unfortunatedly a lot of those pornography films tend to be women forced to do such things... which to me is RAPE...

Sorry, got to disagree with you very strongly...

Who said anything about adult chat being 'pornography'? You sure have some black and white views on issues which, imo, do not lend themselves to such simplistic analysis. What would make you imagine that 'adult' chat between two intelligent and consenting adults, need necessarily be degrading to either of them?

[yondyr]

Indeed, Colette, as quoted by another...'Knowledge is Power' :)

[thod]

I HATE PORNOGRAPHY.... can't deal with it.. I find it degrating.. It degrates women and show's them as animals...

The body is meant to be private, not for sale or showing, and unfortunatedly a lot of those pornography films tend to be women forced to do such things... which to me is RAPE...

Porno is made to for men to wank over. Women don't buy porno, so not much is made for them.

The actresses are not exploited. Many do it for money but many of the amateurs will be doing for the chance to be in a pro move as much as for payment.

There are an awful lot of exhibitionists out there. Take all the amateurs sites where no people make these home movies and distribute them for free. There is no cash incentive, there is no means of coercion.

[PRBori]

Who said anything about adult chat being 'pornography'? You sure have some black and white views on issues which, imo, do not lend themselves to such simplistic analysis. What would make you imagine that 'adult' chat between two intelligent and consenting adults, need necessarily be degrading to either of them?

You know what out of the subject, I don't give it shit about what other people like to do with their lifes when it comes to sexual desires. I just have my own personal views, for my own personal reasons, and I will not even chat with strangers in a sexual manner because that's just against my personal belief.

There, are you guys happy know. A pure INTJ..





PRBori added to this post, 1 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Porno is made to for men to wank over. Women don't buy porno, so not much is made for them.

The actresses are not exploited. Many do it for money but many of the amateurs will be doing for the chance to be in a pro move as much as for payment.

There are an awful lot of exhibitionists out there. Take all the amateurs sites where no people make these home movies and distribute them for free. There is no cash incentive, there is no means of coercion.

Porno is porno, is degrating to women. Bottom line for me. Each person can think whatever they want. I will not change my mind about how I feel on something....

A very stubborn INTJ with very strong opinions, who really don't give it shit what others think...

[ArchonAlarion]

Like good old Ayn Rand, I place sex on a pedastal because love should not be something to just throw around.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Although there is a lot of pornography made to satisfy the male desire to dominate and control women sexually, there is also alot of pornography that is made to satisfy the male desire to be dominated by a woman sexually.

In fact, the psychology behind these two dichotomous desires usually involves the individual males life situation. That is to say, men who fantisize about controlling a woman sexually are usually men who do not feel that they have enough control in their day-to-day lives. Conversely, men who fantisize about being controlled sexually usually hold very powerful positions in their daily lives.

[Colette]

Although there is a lot of pornography made to satisfy the male desire to dominate and control women sexually, there is also alot of pornography that is made to satisfy the male desire to be dominated by a woman sexually.

In fact, the psychology behind these two dichotomous desires usually involves the individual males life situation. That is to say, men who fantisize about controlling a woman sexually are usually men who do not feel that they have enough control in their day-to-day lives. Conversely, men who fantisize about being controlled sexually usually hold very powerful positions in their daily lives.

Which cornflakes box did you get that one out of? :p

Why is it not possible on this forum to have, or engage in, a debate, without broad and sweeping generalizations being made about gender, and what that causes in terms of behavior, or some phenomenon and/or motivation behind a particular behavior or phenomenon? I could contest almost all of your statements in this post, but what bothers me most is that you offer no evidence whatsoever (whether anecdotal or otherwise), for the assumptions you are making.

VD, I think you can do better than this.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Which cornflakes box did you get that one out of? :p

Why is it not possible on this forum to have, or engage in, a debate, without broad and sweeping generalizations being made about gender, and what that causes in terms of behavior, or some phenomenon and/or motivation behind a particular behavior or phenomenon? I could contest almost all of your statements in this post, but what bothers me most is that you offer no evidence whatsoever (whether anecdotal or otherwise), for the assumptions you are making.

VD, I think you can do better than this.
Since you asked so nicely.

Dr. Michael J. Bader, a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst explains this phenomenon in his book Arousal, The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies.

Now........since you claim you can contest these statements, I would ask you to do so.

[Colette]

Since you asked so nicely.

Dr. Michael J. Bader, a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst explains this phenomenon in his book Arousal, The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies.

Now........since you claim you can contest these statements, I would ask you to do so.

Not until you offer up some evidence that I can specifically refute. Let's start with the assertion that men who like to control women sexually are often in high-powered career positions. Any evidence for that, to cite?

[JTG]

Online is another matter for me, when it comes to sex. I mean... it's easier to get to know people online, people feel more confident online, and then there's the whole issue of practicing technique before the act, haha.

My (so far) one and only sexual partner questioned whether i was a virgin. Like... multiple times. I'll leave out the details i'm sure nobody wants to hear, but i would say i advocate online "hookups" because they're free from a lot of the risks and limitations of such things in real life.

EDIT: wow i have a terrible habit of replying without realizing a new page of conversation has started :P anyway, guess i'll comment on the rest of what's been said since i left off reading to reply

I think women can enjoy pornography just as much as men. The preconception that women aren't as sexually charged is flat out false. I know plenty of girls who run circles around their significant others as far as desire is concerned. It's just that for so long, women weren't "allowed" to feel that way, so thanks to the stereotype, a lot of women still have trouble expressing that desire.

This psychiatrist... Dr. Bader. I wonder if he's any relation to Deidrich. (top right (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) I think his theory is an interesting one, and i'm sure he came to the conclusion after lots of research and observation. I'm sure if it is true, then it applies fairly equally to men as it does to women. I wouldn't say i enjoy being dominated - more that i'm flexible when it comes to preference of activity, and I consider myself master of my own destiny. Take that as you will haha....

[PortInStorm]

My worry about porn is its addictive nature to certain ones who are vulnerable (yes, yes, I know we sell, and profit federally from, plenty of additive products, and that people should be responsible for themselves), and the potential of funds from soft-core going into the hard/death porn (forget the street name for it). Yes, this kind of porn is a crime and should be treated as such, but I can't stand the thought of soft porn being a kind of 'front' for torture and death.

I think it's also true that most of us watch soft porn on a daily basis in shows and movies and don't flinch. Someone once offered that to keep watching during that part of a movie was like being a voyeur willingly remaining in someone's bedroom to watch, and that offronts my morality. However, has it changed my viewing habits? Perhaps a little, not as much as it should....

[Colette]

O
I think women can enjoy pornography just as much as men. The preconception that women aren't as sexually charged is flat out false. I know plenty of girls who run circles around their significant others as far as desire is concerned. It's just that for so long, women weren't "allowed" to feel that way, so thanks to the stereotype, a lot of women still have trouble expressing that desire

Yes I agree (except to the extent that I think there is a smaller proportion of women who enjoy porn, due to the fact that imo women are not as stimulated by visuals, generally, as men tend to be). Definitely agree with the later part of your statement, though.

[JTG]

I think it has more to do with the fact that most porn (video) is more geared toward the sociological standards that guys are taught to seek.

There are romance novels though, and a lot of those get pretty explicit. They're more geared toward the standards girls are taught, so i'd consider them the other side of the coin, albeit the less common activity.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Not until you offer up some evidence that I can specifically refute. Let's start with the assertion that men who like to control women sexually are often in high-powered career positions. Any evidence for that, to cite?
Ummmm............I think you read that backward. I hope that hasn't been a theme.
The theory is that powerful men will often want to be sexually submissive to a woman....she will dominate him and he will be submissive to her.

Excerpt from the aforementioned book. "The mechanism is simple: by empowering someone else to hurt or degrade.......they are not the ones doing the hurting or degrading........The unconscious logic is....have others do unto you what you feel guilty about doing unto others."

Paraphrased from the book. If someone feels guilty about being strong or superior to others then feeling weak or inferior and helpless sexually diminishes the guilt and allows sexual excitement to emerge.

I await your refutations.

[ElstonGunn]

Ummmm............I think you read that backward. I hope that hasn't been a theme.
The theory is that powerful men will often want to be sexually submissive to a woman....she will dominate him and he will be submissive to her.

I read somewhere (I have no idea where) about how professional dominatrices have a lot of wealthy business executives as recurring clients. So there's some vague anecdotal hearsay (which, of course, is the most convincing kind of evidence ;)) to support your point.


While we're on the subject: "Sex-- do it for the kids." Ah, puns.

[Colette]

Ummmm............I think you read that backward. I hope that hasn't been a theme.
The theory is that powerful men will often want to be sexually submissive to a woman....she will dominate him and he will be submissive to her.

Excerpt from the aforementioned book. "The mechanism is simple: by empowering someone else to hurt or degrade.......they are not the ones doing the hurting or degrading........The unconscious logic is....have others do unto you what you feel guilty about doing unto others."

Paraphrased from the book. If someone feels guilty about being strong or superior to others then feeling weak or inferior and helpless sexually diminishes the guilt and allows sexual excitement to emerge.

I await your refutations.

Well...is what you have posted actually evidence of the fact that such a phenomenon exists? I see no evidence; either scientific (i.e. studies) or anecdotal (self-reported from men in this situation). All I see is the so called 'logic' put forward by one psychologist reporting on the topic. I am not saying you are wrong (although I suspect the view is wrong); I am merely saying I want to see some evidence of it being the case.

For instance, why the assumption that there is often a 'dominant' and a 'submissive' in sex? Why the assumption that whatever role is adopted has necessarily to due with underlying factors of guilt, or other psychological factors?

I am inherently skeptical of psychologists (and I'd include Freud in this) who seek to psycho-pathologize sexual behavior in this way, and therefore my evidence threshold for accepting their 'supporting' assumptions and propositions for these views, is probably higher than it may be for some other sorts of views being put forward.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Well...is what you have posted actually evidence of the fact that such a phenomenon exists? I see no evidence; either scientific (i.e. studies) or anecdotal (self-reported from men in this situation). All I see is the so called 'logic' put forward by one psychologist reporting on the topic. I am not saying you are wrong (although I suspect the view is wrong); I am merely saying I want to see some evidence of it being the case.

For instance, why the assumption that there is often a 'dominant' and a 'submissive' in sex? Why the assumption that whatever role is adopted has necessarily to due with underlying factors of guilt, or other psychological factors?

I am inherently skeptical of psychologists (and I'd include Freud in this) who seek to psycho-pathologize sexual behavior in this way, and therefore my evidence threshold for accepting their 'supporting' assumptions and propositions for these views, is probably higher than it may be for some other sorts of views being put forward.
Your criteria becomes more and more specific. I fear I will continue to fail each successive level that you set and you will never back up your original statement, "I could contest almost all of your statements in this post....."

You originally said, "I could contest almost all of your statements in this post, but what bothers me most is that you offer no evidence whatsoever (whether anecdotal or otherwise)" I then provided evidence by way of a book written by, "Dr. Michael J. Bader, a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst explains this phenomenon in his book Arousal, The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies."

You then continued to refuse to contest these statements saying, "Not until you offer up some evidence that I can specifically refute." I then went to the trouble of finding an "...excerpt from the aforementioned book. "The mechanism is simple: by empowering someone else to hurt or degrade.......they are not the ones doing the hurting or degrading........The unconscious logic is....have others do unto you what you feel guilty about doing unto others." As well as a paraphrase from the book, "If someone feels guilty about being strong or superior to others then feeling weak or inferior and helpless sexually diminishes the guilt and allows sexual excitement to emerge."

Now you say, "Well...is what you have posted actually evidence of the fact that such a phenomenon exists? I see no evidence; either scientific (i.e. studies) or anecdotal (self-reported from men in this situation). All I see is the so called 'logic' put forward by one psychologist reporting on the topic." So I guess your skeptizism of psychologists negates my evidence.

I can give you some anecdotal evidence that is used by Dr. Bader in his book to help explain his theory, but I feel fairly certain that I will continue to prove my point by backing it up with evidence while you continue to refuse backing up your claims of being able to refute almost everthing I have posted here.

[iamnotspock]

Welcome to the club, v.d.

[Colette]

Your criteria becomes more and more specific. I fear I will continue to fail each successive level that you set and you will never back up your original statement, "I could contest almost all of your statements in this post....."

You originally said, "I could contest almost all of your statements in this post, but what bothers me most is that you offer no evidence whatsoever (whether anecdotal or otherwise)" I then provided evidence by way of a book written by, "Dr. Michael J. Bader, a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst explains this phenomenon in his book Arousal, The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies."

The views of one clinical psychologist does not constitute 'evidence', in such a contestable area of debate (unless you are going to cite footnotes to studies in which he establishes a basis for his theories). I am not trying to be pedantic or stifle interesting debate here; I am simply trying to find an evidential basis for views which, at the moment, seem wholly speculative and unsubstantiated. Once again, this is a highly contestable area of psychology (not helped in its development by Freud's early crackpot theories), so debate needs to proceed cautiously, imo, and on the basis of firm foundations.

In the arena of psychology, a deep-seated psychological reason, or explanation, for a phenomenon, can sound very superficially logical and convincing, but in the end it is evidence (whether anecdotal or otherwise) which confirms the validity or otherwise, of the theory. Psychology does, after all, purport to be a science, as well as a humanity, and can be studied at tertiary level as such.

I am not saying your views, or Dr Bader's, are wrong - I just need to hear more evidence before I can decide, and in true INTJ fashion, I challenge you to supply it ;)

[DeadSpace]

**jumps in the middle**

The fantasy of no strings sex is always better than the reality.
The fantasy:
you meet, few words are exchanged, back to myplace/yourplace for an hour
or so of satisfying great sex. He/you leave, never to see each other again.

The reality:
The meeting is the same as the fantasy, hour or so is reduced to whenever
he's satisfied...why should he care about what you want? 2 bodies, neither
knowing the others banging away trying to get some pleasure. You might realise you don't like the way he smells...well to late now, or his technique...well...he ain't going to change that for you, you're nothing but a body to him. STD's, pregnancy...yea, both are possible, worse
is you don't know him...he could get pleasure from hurting you, or become obsessive...a stalker. Telling all his friends about it is the first thing he'll do...and happily point you out to them if he sees you anywhere and explain in detail to those friends your strengths and weaknesses in bed, any intimate moment for a giggle from peers. The reality is, you'll have no fond memories...you'll have less than nothing after such an encounter. You'll know that you let animal instinct override civilised behavior, that you let a potential danger to yourself...and your family come into your home/into your life. That if you get pregnant, a child completely concieved without anything...and possibly bearing it's own set of unknown genetic maladies, the one nighter father ain't going to help....would be a court battle just to get him to acknowledge the child is his...if you could find him again.

Fantasy one nighters are just that...they don't take into account that
people are real, that the partner you choose you know absolutely nothing about. if it's someone you do know...the consequences tend to be worse. At least in trying to keep it a one time only affair...

From my own ethics...i will never use another human like that...beyond the practicalities aforementioned (std's, preg, mental instability) Doesn't matter if their willing...it's still using someone for my own gratification. I also believe i'll lose a piece of myself...might be small, barely noticeable...but would be easier to lose another...and another...until all there is is one night stands, no feelings...just 2 struggling bodies trying to find pleasure...where truly none exists. A place where there's no warmth, no caring, no respect, no regard. nothing. It's not that sex is something divine...but it can be when two people
love, respect, and care about one another. It can be a way of saying
without words...how much you love someone. That can be earth shattering.

As to how i know this...i've watched friends, acquaintances who do the
casual thing...they're very sad people, they lose friends, family from the
bad ones they pick up, bear scars and emotional wreckage from the psycho
ones...have kids they don't care about from encounters where they got
pregnant. The men constantly brag, boast of their conquests...but live
alone with nothing, all their boasting just false bravado. All their faces
reflect is a beaten down hopelessness, no self esteem, no self worth, they trust no one. Anyone who treats them differently than they expect is subject to suspician. Doen't matter how intelligent, self assured, self reliant they believe themselves to be, i've watched doctors, lawyers, professors, mothers, daughters, fathers and sons all walks of life. Alcohol plays a large role in it, but any drug will do.
humans were animals once mayhap...we aren't anymore.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Welcome to the club, v.d.
Has she ever supplied evidence or does she just challenge and disregard it from everyone else?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 0 minutes and 54 seconds later...

DeadSpace

Fantasy is always better than reality.

[iamnotspock]

Has she ever supplied evidence or does she just challenge and disregard it from everyone else?

Look at the picture under her name. You are arguing with a disciple of Lucy. From the official Peanuts website:

"Lucy Van Pelt works hard at being bossy, crabby and selfish. She is loud and yells a lot. Her smiles and motives are rarely pure. She's a know-it-all who dispenses advice whether you want it or not--and for Charlie Brown, there's a charge. She's a fussbudget, in the true sense of the word. She's a real grouch, with only one or two soft spots, and both of them may be Schroeder, who prefers Beethoven. As she sees it, hers is the only way. The absence of logic in her arguments holds a kind of shining lunacy. When it comes to compliments, Lucy only likes receiving them. If she's paying one--or even smiling--she's probably up to something devious."

[Colette]

Look at the picture under her name. You are arguing with Lucy. From the official Peanuts website:

"Lucy Van Pelt works hard at being bossy, crabby and selfish. She is loud and yells a lot. Her smiles and motives are rarely pure. She's a know-it-all who dispenses advice whether you want it or not--and for Charlie Brown, there's a charge. She's a fussbudget, in the true sense of the word. She's a real grouch, with only one or two soft spots, and both of them may be Schroeder, who prefers Beethoven. As she sees it, hers is the only way. The absence of logic in her arguments holds a kind of shining lunacy. When it comes to compliments, Lucy only likes receiving them. If she's paying one--or even smiling--she's probably up to something devious."

It's easy to fling personal insults around isn't it, at the expense of actually engaging in rational and productive debate on an issue. Do you respond this way whenever a woman attempts to engage another woman (or man) in rational argument - must she be labeled in some fundamentally misogynistic and irrelevant way, that has nothing to do with her argumentation style, or the issue at hand?

I've been unimpressed with the quality of your debating skill over a number of different threads now (as well as taking issue with some of your personal views on a range of moral and gender-based topics). So in summary, I guess I'm not at all surprised to be made the subject of your 'mock-humorous' (but at its core pretty unfunny) derision, in this thread.

You seem to have bitterness toward, and issues in relation to, women, that permeate your posts in every thread (even those unrelated to gender), and I'd actively encourage you to start viewing women as individuals, and engaging with them on that level, rather than as a 'group' which is fundamentally out to get you, and your compatriots.

[iamnotspock]

I just found that picture you chose to represent yourself -- of Lucy knocking out Linus -- to be very telling, Colette.

You and Lucid are the two women here who constantly attack men, argue ad hominem for the sake of arguing, and never cede a valid point, however tiny. Rational? Hardly. At least a half dozen guys have noticed that, vaguely being the latest. But I will take note that you are unimpressed with that point.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Actually I (vaguely) am a female.

[ElstonGunn]

You seem to have bitterness toward, and issues in relation to, women, that permeate your posts in every thread (even those unrelated to gender), and I'd actively encourage you to start viewing women as individuals, and engaging with them on that level, rather than as a 'group' which is fundamentally out to get you, and your compatriots.

The views of one message board poster do not constitute 'evidence', in such a contestable area of debate (unless you are going to cite footnotes to specific posts in which you establish a basis for this theory). I am not trying to be pedantic or stifle interesting debate here; I am simply trying to find an evidential basis for views which, at the moment, seem wholly speculative and unsubstantiated. Once again, this is a highly contestable area of psychology (not helped in its development by Freud's early crackpot theories), so debate needs to proceed cautiously, imo, and on the basis of firm foundations.

[yondyr]

Hey, iamnotspock, you and other guys are in communication here? I think thats great and rather unusual. Typical it's the females that bond, group together, gossip...leaving the guys to solitary defend themselves. Me... I disengage from lengthy squabbles, specially if attacked.

[Colette]

I just found that picture you chose to represent yourself -- of Lucy knocking out Linus -- to be very telling, Colette.

You and Lucid are the two women here who constantly attack men, argue ad hominem for the sake of arguing, and never cede a valid point, however tiny. Rational? Hardly. At least a half dozen guys have noticed that, vaguely being the latest. But I will take note that you are unimpressed with that point.

Ah, back up the bus a little, my friend.

I don't attack men per se - I attack anyone who is incapable of presenting and maintaining a valid, evidence-based, argument,. regardless of race, background, gender, or education. To this extent I am indiscriminate in my requirement for rationalism to prevail over sweeping generalizations and unfounded, unhelpful, accusations against an entire gender, based on a few guys' experience of some women in their lives.

PS: The image was chosen simply for humor, and to fit the "bad cop" image I seem to be so often accused of. Also I am sure in my own mind that Lucy is an INTJ girl :)

PPS: There is seldom 'strength in numbers', in terms of a criticism of one person. If you want to critique me, do it yourself; do not cite others' views and opinions in support of your own, to lend strength. That isn't a convincing approach.

[iamnotspock]

Actually I (vaguely) am a female.

Oops, sorry about that, vaguely. Apparently Colette is an equal-opportunity arguer.

Hey, iamnotspock, you and other guys are in communication here? I think thats great and rather unusual. Typical it's the females that bond, group together, gossip...leaving the guys to solitary defend themselves. Me... I disengage from lengthy squabbles, specially if attacked.

Actually, no, I never talked to any other guys here. It's a good idea, though. We can have a men's club ;-). You sound much more reasonable than me, actually... I tend to stay in the fight until the last bottle is broken over my head ;-)

PPS: There is seldom 'strength in numbers', in terms of a criticism of one person. If you want to critique me, do it yourself; do not cite others' views and opinions in support of your own, to lend strength. That isn't a convincing approach.

Patterns of behavior are very convincing evidence in psychology. And views of others do indeed add credibility to one's own view by reducing the case for individual bias. Hence the entire practice of citation and consultation. So I guess you are wrong there. As for being convinced -- you are never convinced, Colette. So what?

[Colette]

Patterns of behavior are very convincing evidence in psychology

Only if they are linked evidentially (anecdotally or empirically) to some underlying psychological root cause. As I pointed out to V-D, psychology does purport to be a science; thus its premises cannot be established by mere "assertion" alone (no matter how many people repeat that assertion).

And views of others do indeed add credibility to one's own view by reducing the case for individual bias. Hence the entire practice of citation and consultation. So I guess you are wrong there. As for being convinced -- you are never convinced, Colette. So what?

It doesn't bother me too much what you (or the other men here) think of me. I'll continue to call people out on weak and irrational arguments as I see fit and appropriate. I won't launch ad hominem attacks, as it's not necessary, and is not INTJ behavior.

[AnandaMeansBliss]

this thread was once interesting. now its stupid.

[Colette]

this thread was once interesting. now its stupid.

Agreed. I won't post in the thread again; as evidently it creates tangents with the animosity between myself and spock.

Carry on...

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Anyway...............I find the comments about pornography interesting. Many feminist groups have alot to say about the negative and degrading images of women in pornography. I can't really bring myself to seeing it that way. If we take a different look at sex and sexual fantasies as a form of condensing large quantities of unconscious information and processing (the submerged portion of the iceburg) into one act of release (the tip of the iceburg), then not only do we get a different and less negative look at sex, fanatsy, and pornography, but we have another look at the subconscious mind and how it deals with things.

For instance, if there are any women out there that fantisize about being 'taken' sexually (similar to the woman dominating the man fantasy I mentioned in an earlier post), then you may be wondering why. According to the theory I'm talking about this is a common fantasy amoung women who are strong and capable in their daily lives.

[sriv]

Sex is an extremely serious activity but I feel it is a desire that should be overcome. Like drugs, it has a very high rate of addiction and dependency. The only person that I would do it with is my wife and only because she knows much in advance that she is getting into that type of relationship. Sex also should not be used recreationally. There are many other things that are fun and provide pleasure. Playing video games, sports, and hobbies that do not waste time as impractically as sex.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Not use sex for fun???????????? I've been doing wrong!

[Colette]

Sex is an extremely serious activity but I feel it is a desire that should be overcome. Like drugs, it has a very high rate of addiction and dependency. The only person that I would do it with is my wife and only because she knows much in advance that she is getting into that type of relationship. Sex also should not be used recreationally. There are many other things that are fun and provide pleasure. Playing video games, sports, and hobbies that do not waste time as impractically as sex.

ROFL. This is quite possibly the most hilarious post I've ever read on this forum.
A placeholder for classic status, without a doubt :laugh:

[Haphazard]

Sex? What is this sex?

I do not understand.

[iamnotspock]

Agreed. I won't post in the thread again

cool

[Wapiti]

Sex is an extremely serious activity but I feel it is a desire that should be overcome. Like drugs, it has a very high rate of addiction and dependency. The only person that I would do it with is my wife and only because she knows much in advance that she is getting into that type of relationship. Sex also should not be used recreationally. There are many other things that are fun and provide pleasure. Playing video games, sports, and hobbies that do not waste time as impractically as sex.

I am dumbfounded.

"I feel it is a desire that should be overcome."

"Playing video games, sports, and hobbies that do not waste time as impractically as sex"

"There are many other things that are fun and provide pleasure."

I just don't understand where you are coming from. You would rather play video games, sports? :stunned:

[deepFlow]

Okay, this thread is quite fascinating in its striking lack of sexual content. So why don't I add some!

I am an extremely sexual person. Perhaps sexually obsessed, perhaps repressed, I don't know.

I had always been shy and socially awkward, so the sex "did not arrive" until I was deflowered by my now-wife when I was 25, a week before we married.

I love her to bits and when we have sex it still blows my mind after 8 years of cozy comfy soft-place-to-land marriage.

But I feel a need to experience more. Lots more. I missed out on a lot, 33 year old that I am, whereas she sowed oats, lots of them, at a relatively young age. Hey, it's yin and yang, we came from different lives and cleaved together like quite the pair!

So I missed out on a lot. Or another way to say it, I have lots yet to experience, and experience it I shall!

I fantasize all the time, self-stimuli twice a day, and enjoy the good porn once in a while. (It holds not the same mystique it once did, now that I've tasted The Real, but FullMotionVideo of SexualCongress still stimulates from time to time, especially if the sound is in stereo, and the acting is at least Partly Authentic!)

My tastes are pretty simple. She's the kinky one of us. Me I just get off on nakedness, touchingrubbing, closeness, and visiting inside of another. Nothing too complicated. Just good ol' animalistic engagement.

So, where was I... Oh yeah. So morally I hold no particular sacredness in the sexual act, except that the conjoining is one of the few things in life that genuinely Feel Cosmic And Holy (mainly because NaturEvolution made it that way on porpoise!), and I don't believe in Sky Beards, so it's as religious as I want to feel it is, with no holds bard, I guess.

Man this post is kind of a grab-bag hodge-podge isn't it?

Anyway, I am a horny bastard, a late-blooming hedonist, and a curious bisexual male who looks forward to broadening his experience base. Luckily the wife is progressive-minded and worldly enough to be only too happy to have me go seek such out, as long as I do it with all intention of being safe, and not letting it devalue or disregard her, in physical health or emotional comfort and consideration. She always comes firstmost, and my love for her never diminisheth.

Apologies for sounding like a personals ad, but I guess that's my personal manifesto, up there.

So yeah... My Mores consist of "MORE".

...At least, that's the current theory, from where I sit in the socially avoidant perennially self-conscious husk that is my persona. ...Granted, I still have yet to Make Good. It's a difficult thing for such as I. Old habits. Dying hard(ly). Straitjackets of presumed capability and capacity. And so on and so forth.

There, I am done now, with the providings of the compare-and-contrast.

Well, I'll also mention that I fully respect all autonomous beings' freedom of personal will, sexual and all-otherwise. So while I can't see any reason to entertain a voluntary celibacy for prolonged periods, myself, horses are there for the courses and what's good for ganders is not always good for gooses, and vice versa. Good on ye and cheers and good journey on ye're own path!

So! Now, go do continue with the bickerings about degrading pornography! :cheesy:

THANKING YOU!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Okay, this thread is quite fascinating in its striking lack of sexual content. So why don't I add some!

I am an extremely sexual person. Perhaps sexually obsessed, perhaps repressed, I don't know.

I had always been shy and socially awkward, so the sex "did not arrive" until I was deflowered by my now-wife when I was 25, a week before we married.

I love her to bits and when we have sex it still blows my mind after 8 years of cozy comfy soft-place-to-land marriage.

But I feel a need to experience more. Lots more. I missed out on a lot, 33 year old that I am, whereas she sowed oats, lots of them, at a relatively young age. Hey, it's yin and yang, we came from different lives and cleaved together like quite the pair!

So I missed out on a lot. Or another way to say it, I have lots yet to experience, and experience it I shall!

I fantasize all the time, self-stimuli twice a day, and enjoy the good porn once in a while. (It holds not the same mystique it once did, now that I've tasted The Real, but FullMotionVideo of SexualCongress still stimulates from time to time, especially if the sound is in stereo, and the acting is at least Partly Authentic!)

My tastes are pretty simple. She's the kinky one of us. Me I just get off on nakedness, touchingrubbing, closeness, and visiting inside of another. Nothing too complicated. Just good ol' animalistic engagement.

So, where was I... Oh yeah. So morally I hold no particular sacredness in the sexual act, except that the conjoining is one of the few things in life that genuinely Feel Cosmic And Holy (mainly because NaturEvolution made it that way on porpoise!), and I don't believe in Sky Beards, so it's as religious as I want to feel it is, with no holds bard, I guess.

Man this post is kind of a grab-bag hodge-podge isn't it?

Anyway, I am a horny bastard, a late-blooming hedonist, and a curious bisexual male who looks forward to broadening his experience base. Luckily the wife is progressive-minded and worldly enough to be only too happy to have me go seek such out, as long as I do it with all intention of being safe, and not letting it devalue or disregard her, in physical health or emotional comfort and consideration. She always comes firstmost, and my love for her never diminisheth.

Apologies for sounding like a personals ad, but I guess that's my personal manifesto, up there.

So yeah... My Mores consist of "MORE".

...At least, that's the current theory, from where I sit in the socially avoidant perennially self-conscious husk that is my persona. ...Granted, I still have yet to Make Good. It's a difficult thing for such as I. Old habits. Dying hard(ly). Straitjackets of presumed capability and capacity. And so on and so forth.

There, I am done now, with the providings of the compare-and-contrast.

Well, I'll also mention that I fully respect all autonomous beings' freedom of personal will, sexual and all-otherwise. So while I can't see any reason to entertain a voluntary celibacy for prolonged periods, myself, horses are there for the courses and what's good for ganders is not always good for gooses, and vice versa. Good on ye and cheers and good journey on ye're own path!

So! Now, go do continue with the bickerings about degrading pornography! :cheesy:

THANKING YOU!
Holy expose' Batman!

Sounds like you guys are happy and comfortable in your 'arrangement' so go forth and fornicate. Speaking for myself, I am pretty sure that bringing another person into the 'couple' that we now are.... would sow the seeds of mistrust pretty quickly. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd be into polyandry within the blink of an eye.

[simoncpu]

My view on sex is that I can do it with anyone who is game as long as it satisfies the following conditions:

I'm single.
No deception is involved (i.e., games).
The negative consequences of doing the act is lesser than its positive benefits.


Weird though. Although I don't want to have sex with other girls if I have a girlfriend at the moment (this is my skewed concept of being loyal or whatever), I have no qualms having sex with girls who are not single. Hmmmm.... :cool:

[Colette]

My view on sex is that I can do it with anyone who is game as long as it satisfies the following conditions:
[LIST=1]
I'm single.
No deception is involved (i.e., games).
The negative consequences of doing the act is lesser than its positive benefits.


Fairly much my set of 'mores' too. As Western societies we seem to have been mired now for a while in what I would call a fairly 'prudish and moralistic' attitude to sex, and its role and place in our lives and relationships. Perhaps this is down mostly to the Judaeo-Christian underpinnings of our moral and legal system; perhaps to the influence of Victoriana (and Puritanism in the US), who knows? What I do know though is that prior to about 250 years ago, sex was an activity that people even in Western societies seemed capable of enjoying on its own merits, without guilt and a sense of it being 'wrong', unless in the context of marriage or a long-term relationship. That idea seems to have gone forever, in today's neo-conservative moral environment.

Weird though. Although I don't want to have sex with other girls if I have a girlfriend at the moment (this is my skewed concept of being loyal or whatever), I have no qualms having sex with girls who are not single. Hmmmm.... :cool:

In both cases you are a party to a deception, and to cheating. It makes no difference that in the first case the partner is yours. Just interested in why you don't see the similarity, in moral terms, of both scenarios?

[Sitara]

The fantasy of no strings sex is always better than the reality...
From my own ethics...i will never use another human like that... It's not that sex is something divine...but it can be when two people
love, respect, and care about one another. It can be a way of saying
without words...how much you love someone. That can be earth shattering.

What a romantic post:lovestruck:

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Really.........when I think about it polyandry makes alot of sense. I mean, women have a very short refractory period and can perform just about at will, whereas, men.........

[Ribbentrop]

Which has resulted in the most suffering -- sex, or the lack thereof?

[yondyr]

Voluntary or involuntary suffering?

[JTG]

...not letting it devalue or disregard her, in physical health or emotional comfort and consideration.

This is i think the most important boundary any couple can have, whether the activity in question is sexual or not.

And i'm personally in agreement with simoncpu's analysis. I view things pretty much the same way.

[iamnotspock]

That idea seems to have gone forever, in today's neo-conservative moral environment.

So much for Collette's promises....

But I find this notion to be utterly absurd (and unsupported with any evidence). Moral standards appear to be basically gone. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want, however, whenever, and wherever you want, and act as if there are no societal consequences.

Personally I find this appalling, and a root of society's decay, evidence of current decadence, and a harbinger of a great fall, much like that of Rome...

Do any conservatives (or "neo-conservatives") want to take up that end of the argument?

[PRBori]

So much for Collette's promises....

But I find this notion to be utterly absurd (and unsupported with any evidence). Moral standards appear to be basically gone. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want, however, whenever, and wherever you want, and act as if there are no societal consequences.

Personally I find this appalling, and a root of society's decay, evidence of current decadence, and a harbinger of a great fall, much like that of Rome...

Do any conservatives (or "neo-conservatives") want to take up that end of the argument?

I agree with you... I think today people do not care about the consequences of being promiscous sexually and that's why diceases continue to spread. It' is unfortunate that some people tend to have "Sex" for the fun of it.

The unfortunate part about this behavior is that many innocent people pay dearly for it. It's also sad to know that many of those diceases sometimes take years to activate and at this point are uncurable.

In this society, no matter how careful we feel we are, there is really no bullet proof guarantee that you will not get an STD; however, is better to abstain or be cautious than to regret sooner than later.

[Colette]

So much for Collette's promises....

Ummm...what promises would those be?

But I find this notion to be utterly absurd (and unsupported with any evidence). Moral standards appear to be basically gone. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want, however, whenever, and wherever you want, and act as if there are no societal consequences

Would you kindly explain to me (as specifically as you can, and preferably with some examples), how casual consenting sex between two adults, where said adults take appropriate measures to avoid pregnancy and STD, causes some sort of "societal decay"? In what ways does it do this?

[iamnotspock]

Agreed. I won't post in the thread again...

Don't worry. I didn't believe that.

The forms of decay are multiple:
- Cheating undermines relationships
- Promiscuity delays commitments
- Sex-saturated society drives consumption
- Consumption decays environment, depletes savings, drives market instability
- Early sexualization drives self-esteem issues underlying disorders like bulimia, anorexia, depression
- Meaningless sex causes depression

I can go on and on. Why don't you give us some points for the no-strings-attached Sex and the City approach. Challening is easy. Supporting your own case is harder.

[simoncpu]

In both cases you are a party to a deception, and to cheating. It makes no difference that in the first case the partner is yours. Just interested in why you don't see the similarity, in moral terms, of both scenarios?

Girl = princess
Boy = knight

Knight is not single. Princess is single. Knight gets princess. Knight's gf gets hurt. -- BAD
Knight is single. Princess is not single. Knight get's princess. Princess' bf gets hurt. Why should I care for her bf? I'm heterosexual, you know. ;D

In moral terms, I'm not a party to deception or cheating as long as I can get her to sign a waiver claiming that she was single the day of the act. Hehehe. ;D

[Colette]

Don't worry. I didn't believe that.

The forms of decay are multiple:
- Cheating undermines relationships
- Promiscuity delays commitments
- Sex-saturated society drives consumption
- Consumption decays environment, depletes savings, drives market instability
- Early sexualization drives self-esteem issues underlying disorders like bulimia, anorexia, depression
- Meaningless sex causes depression

I can go on and on. Why don't you give us some points for the no-strings-attached Sex and the City approach. Challening is easy. Supporting your own case is harder.

Ah OK I'd forgotten I'd said that. This is quite an interesting topic, but it's your thread and if you don't want me posting here, no problem.

I don't have to 'support my case' - it's just personal preference, what I have outlined. I don't see sex as a moral issue, the way many do.

[simoncpu]

Would you kindly explain to me (as specifically as you can, and preferably with some examples), how casual consenting sex between two adults, where said adults take appropriate measures to avoid pregnancy and STD, causes some sort of "societal decay"? In what ways does it do this?

Condoms cause societal decay by hampering genetic information propagation into the general population. Societal integrity lies on genetic diversity and even genetic information distribution, hence the need for perpetual hookups through alcohol and marijuana.

[Colette]

Condoms cause societal decay by hampering genetic information propagation into the general population. Societal integrity lies on genetic diversity and even genetic information distribution, hence the need for perpetual hookups through alcohol and marijuana.

Ah OK, thanks....I was a little hazy on the link, but now it's all clear ;)

[iamnotspock]

Ah OK I'd forgotten I'd said that. This is quite an interesting topic, but it's your thread and if you don't want me posting here, no problem.

I don't have to 'support my case' - it's just personal preference, what I have outlined. I don't see sex as a moral issue, the way many do.

I'm not a mod. But it's annoying that you ask everyone else to support their case in detail -- and then claim a personal exemption for your own statements.

[Colette]

I'm not a mod. But it's annoying that you ask everyone else to support their case in detail -- and then claim a personal exemption for your own statements.

I don't claim an exemption, as I pointed out, my views on sex are my personal preference; therefore there is no 'evidence' to cite for or against my view (because I do not claim it as a moral issue). Do you see?

With your own view, I asked you to justify the comment that promiscuous sex causes the 'decay of society'. That is a fairly big claim to make, and I simply asked you to provide evidence by way of example. Is that too much to expect in a debate?

[Ribbentrop]

Your very own statements are aimed at the 'decay of society'. You repeatedly state this society has a lot of Judeo-Christian and Puritan influences. And, it seems your personal preferences and statements seek to counter those influences. So you are working against the status quo, in effect, 'decaying' the underpinnings of society as it currently stands, or stood. Except that you see change as positive, i.e. liberating, not negative.

I could say that guns are not a moral issue, because my guns have never killed anyone (I like to call it a casual, consenting relationship between a man and his weapons). And, my drinking followed by driving is not a moral issue for the same reason.

But in the wonderful world outside of your bedroom and my shooting range they ARE moral issues because people don't act rationally 100% of the time. Bullets, beer and -- uh, what's a good sex word that starts with 'b' -- boofing are making fresh corpses daily.

[AnandaMeansBliss]

boofing? now thats funny.

[Colette]

Your very own statements are aimed at the 'decay of society'. You repeatedly state this society has a lot of Judeo-Christian and Puritan influences. And, it seems your personal preferences and statements seek to counter those influences. So you are working against the status quo, in effect, 'decaying' the underpinnings of society as it currently stands, or stood. Except that you see change as positive, i.e. liberating, not negative.

I could say that guns are not a moral issue, because my guns have never killed anyone (I like to call it a casual, consenting relationship between a man and his weapons). And, my drinking followed by driving is not a moral issue for the same reason.

But in the wonderful world outside of your bedroom and my shooting range they ARE moral issues because people don't act rationally 100% of the time. Bullets, beer and -- uh, what's a good sex word that starts with 'b' -- boofing are making fresh corpses daily.

Yeah, whatever whatever. You'll find plenty of willing supporters in this thread for that view :rolleyes:

[iamnotspock]

Your very own statements are aimed at the 'decay of society'. You repeatedly state this society has a lot of Judeo-Christian and Puritan influences. And, it seems your personal preferences and statements seek to counter those influences. So you are working against the status quo, in effect, 'decaying' the underpinnings of society as it currently stands, or stood. Except that you see change as positive, i.e. liberating, not negative.

I could say that guns are not a moral issue, because my guns have never killed anyone (I like to call it a casual, consenting relationship between a man and his weapons). And, my drinking followed by driving is not a moral issue for the same reason.

But in the wonderful world outside of your bedroom and my shooting range they ARE moral issues because people don't act rationally 100% of the time. Bullets, beer and -- uh, what's a good sex word that starts with 'b' -- boofing are making fresh corpses daily.

I would have gone with "boinking" myself ;-) But this is a very astute observation. Actually, two. No man (or woman) is an island, right?

[Aurelia]

sex for me, is something to be given and shared. the one night routine is completely unsatisfying. i need a connection with the girl to make it real. despite being an intj, who might be able to rationalize meaningless sex, i prefer to have have some control over my biological imperitive type impulses and would rather remain celibate. (it aint easy) this way i have nothing lurking in my past that could bite me in the ass later on if i should ever meet the right girl. ( some slut poacher i am)

I am pleasantly surprised by your thoughts on this subject. Who would have thought that chastity would be a virtue of someone who wants to refer to themselves as the "slut poacher?" I had experienced meaningless sex on a few occasions and it was also completely unsatisfying. Not necessarily a one night stand sort of deal but it was just with someone that I didn't have a strong connection with. In the end, I also chose to also become celibate. While dating my husband for five years, the first three years we did not have any sexual contact (becoming a Christian was an additional factor in my decision).

What's difficult about sex is most people do not get checked regularly for STDs or make sure their partner has had a recent test. It's not just about herpes, genital warts or HIV. Hepatitis can be a concern especially if your partner was born before 1982 (the year that the hepatitis B vaccine became available). For women, it is especially important to get regularly checked even if you do not show any signs or symptoms of a STD. Most women will be asymptomatic even while the infection progresses to pelvic inflammatory disease.

Sex can be a wonderful expression of love and intimacy between two people. While the mainstream message of sex is do what you like when you want, rarely does it include messages of "have protected sex" or "get checked for STDs." One of the reasons why I enjoyed Sex and the City was because of the varied points of view. Samantha had a casual approach to sex (even she was shown to get tested for HIV in one episode) and Charlotte was very conservative (generally waited for the perfect man to ask her out on the perfect date and even then she made him wait). On one occasion Charlotte wasn't so careful and actually got crabs. Eeeh.

[Colette]

What's difficult about sex is most people do not get checked regularly for STDs or make sure their partner has had a recent test. It's not just about herpes, genital warts or HIV. Hepatitis can be a concern especially if your partner was born before 1982 (the year that the hepatitis B vaccine became available). For women, it is especially important to get regularly checked even if you do not show any signs or symptoms of a STD. Most women will be asymptomatic even while the infection progresses to pelvic inflammatory disease.


Sure, that's all true, but if you want to engage in sex (and I'd add to this even people contemplating a long term relationship with someone who's had previous partners), it becomes an issue of 'due diligence', doesn't it? For myself, I have always checked with people on this issue, and in a couple of cases have actually requested that they have a test, or have offered to do one myself, before I get into a sexual relationship with them. It's just the smart thing to do to avoid personal risk.

[iamnotspock]

Sure, that's all true, but if you want to engage in sex (and I'd add to this even people contemplating a long term relationship with someone who's had previous partners), it becomes an issue of 'due diligence', doesn't it? For myself, I have always checked with people on this issue, and in a couple of cases have actually requested that they have a test, or have offered to do one myself, before I get into a sexual relationship with them. It's just the smart thing to do to avoid personal risk.

How do you check with them? Just take their word? I did that -- then required a test, and found HBV in one case. But the STD panels cost over $500. And you have to wait two weeks after that for the HIV. Is there a better option?

[Colette]

How do you check with them? Just take their word? I did that -- then required a test, and found HBV in one case. But the STD panels cost over $500. And you have to wait two weeks after that for the HIV. Is there a better option?

No I don't necessarily take their word. In only two cases have I felt I needed to check for HIV/Hep C, because of the sexual history of the people involved, and in these cases I actually required a test from the people. They will do this if they really want you as a partner. That said, I am not, myself, someone who engages frequently in casual sex. It's just that I have done in the past, and reserve the right to do so in future if that is what I feel I want at the time.

[iamnotspock]

No I don't necessarily take their word. In only two cases have I felt I needed to check for HIV/Hep C, because of the sexual history of the people involved, and in these cases I actually required a test from the people. They will do this if they really want you as a partner. That said, I am not, myself, someone who engages frequently in casual sex. It's just that I have done in the past, and reserve the right to do so in future if that is what I feel I want at the time.

So you asked to see the results? And you waited a few weeks after that for the HIV? What about all the other STD's out there? There are a bunch...

Note: I am not debating you. I'm just clarifying. Myself, I was more paranoid, and that is how I found Hep B., which is an expensive test, btw.

[Colette]

So you asked to see the results? And you waited a few weeks after that for the HIV? What about all the other STD's out there? There are a bunch...

Note: I am not debating you. I'm just clarifying. Myself, I was more paranoid, and that is how I found Hep B., which is an expensive test, btw.

Ah yes but you're a little OCD and hypochondriachal, aren't you? I think we established that on another thread a couple of months back.

Personally speaking, I will take reasonable measures to mitigate risk (whatever the risk issue is), but I am not a person who lives my life in paranoia and suspicion of others, or the harm they might cause me. If I've done my best to prevent harm, then life's too short to obsess about all the remote and unlikely possibilities that may eventuate.

[PRBori]

No I don't necessarily take their word. In only two cases have I felt I needed to check for HIV/Hep C, because of the sexual history of the people involved, and in these cases I actually required a test from the people. They will do this if they really want you as a partner. That said, I am not, myself, someone who engages frequently in casual sex. It's just that I have done in the past, and reserve the right to do so in future if that is what I feel I want at the time.

It seems like your approach really differs from a regular INTJ person. True sometimes we can trust people, sometimes we ask and if they are not concern about taking the test that's actually a good sign, for most men when you tell them to take an STD test will literally tell you "Go to Hell"..

And although testing is good, some STDs cannot be fully tested, for example HPV, there is absolutlety no test available for men, so no matter how many test they do, you'll never know if they have it since the high risk version have no symptoms. In addition, HIV can take years to show up. Reason why I know that even those of us who are cautious can never be really safe, but playing safe will somehow limit exposured.

[iamnotspock]

Well, that was what you called me, and back then, I was being gracious and self-deprecating, b/c I thought you were a lady. But in fact, I have the DNA evidence for the condition I have, which is not something you make up in your head, so feel free to stuff it on the labeling.

Personally speaking, I find people who accuse others of being hypochonriacs to be incredibly insensitive, as well as uninformed. Looks like you're back to old form, Lucy. Time to update the pic?

[Colette]

Personally speaking, I find people who accuse others of being hypochonriacs to be incredibly insensitive, as well as uninformed. Looks like you're back to old form, Lucy. Time to update the pic?

Can't think of a better word for it. Maybe 'excessive health consciousness'? I'm referring to your thread regarding working from home and the relatively extreme measures you are taking to ward off infection, and the perceived risk of it, and also the food-related ideas you posted about in that thread. I only mentioned it, because your attitude to health and risk helps to explain why you are extremely concerned about STDs; even where the risk has been judged and assessed to be negligible.

PBori: I don't think I'm anomalous for an INTJ; I am relatively risk-averse, however once I've taken what I consider to be 'reasonable measures', I don't continue to obsess about the risk.

[JTG]

So much for Collette's promises....

But I find this notion to be utterly absurd (and unsupported with any evidence). Moral standards appear to be basically gone. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want, however, whenever, and wherever you want, and act as if there are no societal consequences.

Personally I find this appalling, and a root of society's decay, evidence of current decadence, and a harbinger of a great fall, much like that of Rome...

Do any conservatives (or "neo-conservatives") want to take up that end of the argument?

Haha... i'm liberal and i can see that it's the beginning of the end. Look at all great civilizations of the past and it's clear. A nation gets too big/powerful, and decline takes place. Either it happens because the citizens get arrogant and complacent in their "superiority" (which is the case) or unrest builds because of a widening gap between upper and lower class (also the case)

[Aurelia]

So you asked to see the results? And you waited a few weeks after that for the HIV? What about all the other STD's out there? There are a bunch...

Note: I am not debating you. I'm just clarifying. Myself, I was more paranoid, and that is how I found Hep B., which is an expensive test, btw.

Something you might consider is to get a doctor's order for hepatitis but actually go to the lab yourself and pay cash upfront. Many labs will charge you half of what doctor's offices charge as long as you can pay with cash. There are many clinics that offer STD testing for free as well.

[deepFlow]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder what's the difference between what I think I want, versus what I actually want. (Does that make any sense?)

Maybe sometimes I have a problem separating fantasy from reality. Fantasy serves its momentary purpose (in safety of own-home, etc), but then perhaps I blow it out of proportion from there. Maybe those subject matters really do suffice as "cannon fodder", but aren't something I'd actually want to engage in, in real life.

Interesting foods for thoughts in this thread. Regardless of my flippant and overenthusiastic rant/blather up above, I do in calm retrospect appreciate hearing from those who are more sedate or restrained ;-) in their proclivities...

It's nice to have alternate perspectives, and always good to have reason to question and examine my own assumptions about myself...

Basically I'd just like to thank everyone who is authentically participating/contributing, and relax the hyperactive wordspew a bit.

[simoncpu]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder what's the difference between what I think I want, versus what I actually want. (Does that make any sense?)


The difference between the two is on your level of sureness and willingness to acquire them. Things you think you want are things you want but are not yet sure if it's OK to have them even if you're given the opportunity to have them. Things you actually want are things that you will get if the opportunity presents itself. :)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder what's the difference between what I think I want, versus what I actually want. (Does that make any sense?)

Maybe sometimes I have a problem separating fantasy from reality. Fantasy serves its momentary purpose (in safety of own-home, etc), but then perhaps I blow it out of proportion from there. Maybe those subject matters really do suffice as "cannon fodder", but aren't something I'd actually want to engage in, in real life.

Interesting foods for thoughts in this thread. Regardless of my flippant and overenthusiastic rant/blather up above, I do in calm retrospect appreciate hearing from those who are more sedate or restrained ;-) in their proclivities...

It's nice to have alternate perspectives, and always good to have reason to question and examine my own assumptions about myself...

Basically I'd just like to thank everyone who is authentically participating/contributing, and relax the hyperactive wordspew a bit.
Not really sure what you're getting at here, but fantasy is often a way of dealing with 'issues'. You could equate it to dreaming. The subconscious is trying to work something out using visual stimulus and fantasy.

[sriv]

In response to the reaction of my first post:

I stand by my opinion. Sex is a desire that is to be overcome. Nothing comes out of it but pleasure and time can be much better spent doing utilitarian or educational things. The real question: Is the purpose of life pleasure? I think no. If life as pleasure was taken to the extreme, it would fall into chaos and anarchy. People would be trapped in addictions and only be worried about themselves and their own pleasure. Sex is ANIMAL CRAVING :thumbsdown:. Real love comes with extreme respect and trust for one another. Freudian ID = Human limitation. You can tell I am an idealist.

[PRBori]

In response to the reaction of my first post:

I stand by my opinion. Sex is a desire that is to be overcome. Nothing comes out of it but pleasure and time can be much better spent doing utilitarian or educational things. The real question: Is the purpose of life pleasure? I think no. If life as pleasure was taken to the extreme, it would fall into chaos and anarchy. People would be trapped in addictions and only be worried about themselves and their own pleasure. Sex is ANIMAL CRAVING :thumbsdown:. Real love comes with extreme respect and trust for one another. Freudian ID = Human limitation. You can tell I am an idealist.

I agree with your analysis... So you're not alone..:thumbsup:

[iamnotspock]

Something you might consider is to get a doctor's order for hepatitis but actually go to the lab yourself and pay cash upfront. Many labs will charge you half of what doctor's offices charge as long as you can pay with cash. There are many clinics that offer STD testing for free as well.

How do you get the doc's orders, though? Don't you have to pay for the doc visit? Also, where are the free clinics found? I hear about that all the time, but have no idea where you actually find them, or what tests they actually do.

I just turned down a FWB situation served up on a platter b/c I didn't want to take the risk or fork over $650 for all the tests ordered online. And I don't trust anyone or leave anything to chance. Thanks for any details you can provide!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

In response to the reaction of my first post:

I stand by my opinion. Sex is a desire that is to be overcome. Nothing comes out of it but pleasure and time can be much better spent doing utilitarian or educational things. The real question: Is the purpose of life pleasure? I think no. If life as pleasure was taken to the extreme, it would fall into chaos and anarchy. People would be trapped in addictions and only be worried about themselves and their own pleasure. Sex is ANIMAL CRAVING :thumbsdown:. Real love comes with extreme respect and trust for one another. Freudian ID = Human limitation. You can tell I am an idealist.
Why can't life be a balance of all of these things?

[thod]

I stand by my opinion. Sex is a desire that is to be overcome. Nothing comes out of it but pleasure and time can be much better spent doing utilitarian or educational things.

But i like spending my time doing pleasurable things. I actively seek pleasure over pain.

The real question: Is the purpose of life pleasure? I think no. If life as pleasure was taken to the extreme, it would fall into chaos and anarchy. People would be trapped in addictions and only be worried about themselves and their own pleasure.

They are. It is the human condition.

Sex is ANIMAL CRAVING

I am an an animal, nay a depraved and sinful animal. You can keep the Dostoevsky and Hegel. These are nothing to a pretty girls smile.

[ceg6]

I'm curious what INTJ's feel about current sexual mores. Do you think it's good that sex is less of a big deal than before? That it's often separated from commitment in a "friends with benefits", "one night stand", or "hookup" scenario? And that women are encouraged to have their conquests, too, as in the "Sex In the City" scenario?

I have one sexual partner. We enjoy sex as much as possible, as often as possible and in every way possible. I thought of sex much differently when I was younger so I can understand what I read in this thread. Now it is a true need for both of us and with age comes experience. Experience is a nice thing. It promotes easy communication and experimentation that wasn't possible in say..my 20's. I had my share of the hook ups and conquests and one night stands then. I have no desire for it now. But frequency with my partner is something I won't be without again.

[sriv]

Why can't life be a balance of all of these things?

If life was a balance of everything...then there would be no incentive for perfection. I could not bear that.

Thod, I understand you seek pleasure. In my first post I listed a number of ways that pleasure can be sought discluding sex.

I am suggesting humans have greater capabilities. In the end we are all animals, but we have achieved heights no animal has ever acheived and we are capable of more. Much more. Why do you think American Prohibition of alcohol didnt work? Again, Freidian ID = human limitation

If possible I suggest we direct a large number of the population away from wasteful activities that overemphasize pleasure into science and other intellectual fields for technological advancements. Things we are wasting our time/money on: too much TV (5 hr+), too much sex, war in Iraq, interior designs for houses, etc. The list goes on and on.

Technological advancements may be made to end poverty and world hunger. People need to understand that some things reduce productivity and some things increase it.

[blueback]

You should read Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man.

If humans ever solved all of their problems they would find an even bigger one waiting for them, apathy. There hasn't been a single point in our entire existence when we weren't struggling with something. We are a product of our own evolution, it's inescapable.

Lets say we solved all the problems in the world, no more hunger, no more pain, no more bad late-night talk show hosts. What would we do?

Besides, there is no way to ever solve all the problems in the world. Even if you got all the basic human stuff worked out, like food, water and shelter, people would just have more time to fight each other about the higher human stuff like religion, morality and self-determination.

Also, I disagree with your definition of sex. It's not just about pleasure, it is also about reproduction. Since the evolutionary process is driven by reproduction, doesn't it make sense that reproducing would be the most pleasurable thing we could do? That brings me to my next point, which is that emotions are the only reason for doing anything. We only do things to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Period.

[TheLastMohican]

I find the current sexually overt culture disgusting. I think the main problem is the sex education in the schools. The philosophy is that there is no way to get the kids to not have sex, and therefore it is best to teach them how to have "safe" sex.
Unfortunately this cannot be undone, because sex is too common a topic already. It will not go away. When the schools started early sex ed, the parents backed away from the subject and let the schools take over. This, along with the generation that grew up during the sexual revolution, led to a common belief that premarital sex was normal and acceptable, and the most the schools could do was provide information about contraceptives.
Abstinence is the only foolproof method. Unfortunately the "free love" mentality is so ingrained in today's youth that abstinence-only education tends to fail just as much as the regular approach. Is there any hope?

[blueback]

Chastity belts.

Seriously, are you really expecting teenagers not to have sex? For most of our evolution they would have been getting married and having kids at their age.

[DeadSpace]

Chastity belts.

Seriously, are you really expecting teenagers not to have sex? For most of our evolution they would have been getting married and having kids at their age.

so...behaving like an animal is justified because that's how it's always been? Teenagers don't take care of the trouble they get into, hell, not even most adults do. Consequences...last thing thought of...if it's ever even considered when animal instinct/hormones take over. Being civilised is alot more than just wearing clothes and being able to speak, controlling yourself is one of the hallmarks i believe, controlling your impulses, hormones, and instincts.

[TheLastMohican]

Chastity belts.

Seriously, are you really expecting teenagers not to have sex? For most of our evolution they would have been getting married and having kids at their age.

Yes. (GASP!!! :scared:)

And if they do have sex, then they deserve no treatment for their STD's.
Of course, our society is lenient and full of wusses, so as soon as a teenager who is considered "mature enough to make his own decisions" gets pregnant or infected, he/she is suddenly coddled and felt sorry for because he/she is "just a kid."

If the stupid teen thinks he is old enough to have sex, then he had better not use his age to get special treatment when he has to face the nasty consequences.

[gogurtdynasty]

Nice body? No STDS? Not going to magically be in love with me tomorrow? Not going anywhere near my asshole?

Alright let's go!

(alright there's the jokey part now for the serious bit)


Also... anybody who bitches about teens having sex is a retard.(don't take this too personally because i skimmed the topic and did not pay attention to who said what so no... if you're thinking it this is not directed specifically towards yourself) No ifs and or butts... you're retarded. They are freakin' young adults. They have not learned their repercussions, they have not learned what it really means, hell they barely enjoy it! They are just young, wanting to grow up fast and see sexuality as being the gateway to the adult world. It's not their fault for being curious about something that's so hyped up. Chewing out a youth for having sex is like bitching at somebody for eating fast food... its pointless and not your business. I worked at the Department of Public Health in highschool doing peer pregnancy and STD prevention, I was the counselor for ages 12-19. I've seen it all and i could bitch for days about the way i wish people would act, but they're still human and don't deserve to be treated poorly just because they made a choice based on what they've learned in their personal history. Try educating yourself and share your knowledge if you really want to help anything... no matter how much you complain it won't make things like this go your way





gogurtdynasty added to this post, 20 minutes and 53 seconds later...

I find the current sexually overt culture disgusting. I think the main problem is the sex education in the schools. The philosophy is that there is no way to get the kids to not have sex, and therefore it is best to teach them how to have "safe" sex.
Unfortunately this cannot be undone, because sex is too common a topic already. It will not go away. When the schools started early sex ed, the parents backed away from the subject and let the schools take over. This, along with the generation that grew up during the sexual revolution, led to a common belief that premarital sex was normal and acceptable, and the most the schools could do was provide information about contraceptives.
Abstinence is the only foolproof method. Unfortunately the "free love" mentality is so ingrained in today's youth that abstinence-only education tends to fail just as much as the regular approach. Is there any hope?


Alright, now i read some others posts... How in the world do you expect parents to educate their children on sex? Most of the parents would be too ignorant or too embarrassed to give their children a legitimate explanation to the subject or truthful answers to their questions... Tons of what they teach in schools sex ed classes are proven lies anyway...

[blueback]

so...behaving like an animal is justified because that's how it's always been?


Right. Having sex is just like running around naked, eating grass, and rolling in feces. While I admit to having had sex that might be described as "animal like", and I'm sure others have too, it is hardly degrading.


Teenagers don't take care of the trouble they get into, hell, not even most adults do.


So basically you just don't like anyone.


Being civilised is alot more than just wearing clothes and being able to speak, controlling yourself is one of the hallmarks i believe, controlling your impulses, hormones, and instincts.


Well, apparently you think being civilized means not reproducing. Lets all follow your advice and see how far it gets us. . .oh wait, if we don't reproduce our species will go extinct like those stupid pandas.

Or maybe you think being civilized means not kissing until you're engaged, not seeing your partner in their underwear until the wedding night, having awkward missionary sex for 5 minutes and then spooing and talking about how beautiful it was.


Yes.


You don't get out much, do you? Here's an idea, if 99.99% of the population disagrees with you. . .maybe you should take their collective opinion more seriously.


And if they do have sex, then they deserve no treatment for their STD's.


Oooookaaaay. . .cuz they knew the risks, right? Should we refuse medical treatment to people who get into car accidents? Just because it was completely not their fault, they knew the risks when they decided to drive, so they shouldn't get treatement.


If the stupid teen thinks he is old enough to have sex, then he had better not use his age to get special treatment when he has to face the nasty consequences.


What are you talking about? How would a guy who got an STD get special treatment just because he's underage? He'd go the the dermatologist and get some cream or some pills just like everyone else.

[iamnotspock]

But Blueback, you got 1/4 teen girls with an STD. Half of Black girl teens with an STD. Those are TEENS. That is a direct result of the slutiness of today's society. You endorse that? That is your ideal of women? Those things are NOT cured with a pill or a cream.

I think it's a fucked up situation where a good chunk of the females are polluted with disease before most men (not the popular hotties in high school) ever meet them. And that pollution drives medical costs. Increases AIDS rates. And requires new gov. programs which rich guys like me (who worked their ass off while the others were fucking) are mostly paying for.

Frankly I say fuck that. If you can't keep your pants on until you're 18 you won't have the self-discipline to accomplish anything else. Go move to a slum in Mexico and stop living on my dime. No surprise America rots into a consumerist hell-hole with most people in debt, producing fake paper profits, and using up the worlds energy resources to power our self-indulgent lifestyle.

Thing that bothers me most -- what is the point of being a hard working man, getting successful, and finding the only women left to choose from are diseased whores?

Real inspiring...

[gogurtdynasty]

oh shut up about medical costs already... everybody deserves medical care no matter what the circumstances

Why don't you worry yourself with the further atrocities that your tax dollars fund rather than pooping your pants over somebodies ignorant mistake

[DeadSpace]

Right. Having sex is just like running around naked, eating grass, and rolling in feces. While I admit to having had sex that might be described as "animal like", and I'm sure others have too, it is hardly degrading.

hmm, perhaps i needed to explain better, animal like, as in letting instinct control(like a dog that will hump anything that moves...and quite a few things that don't...or aren't even the same species), not as in animal like sex...not sure how you got the 2 confused...but hope that clears it up for you.

So basically you just don't like anyone.

i like quite a few people actually, rational people...tend not to like people who do or say things because 'everybody else does it' or quote statistics of how many do something so they feel justified in doing it too....i'm not part of the herd. Not much use for anyone who is.

Well, apparently you think being civilized means not reproducing. Lets all follow your advice and see how far it gets us. . .oh wait, if we don't reproduce our species will go extinct like those stupid pandas.

Once again (see above) you didn't quite get it(starting to believe it's intentional...you seem smart) Nothing wrong with reproducing, or sex for that matter...but it becoming just a search for pleasure...or the guiding force in your life and relationships...might as well be an animal. That's all they think about...reproduction, and pleasure...running from pain. Something you stated earlier in one of your posts...sorry blue, not everyone is driven by basic pavlovian responses.

Or maybe you think being civilized means not kissing until you're engaged, not seeing your partner in their underwear until the wedding night, having awkward missionary sex for 5 minutes and then spooing and talking about how beautiful it was.

civilised is exactly what i said it was, has nothing to do with what you posted as a 'follow up' lol, think you have me confused with a teenager maybe? Or was that an attempt to be insulting? Controlling our impulses (human) is what makes us different from animals, that does not just include sex, ~~>murder, territorial urges, clubbing someone over the head because you're stronger, and taking what you want...see the difference between rational debate? and...well...whatever you're try to do.

[iamnotspock]

oh shut up about medical costs already... everybody deserves medical care no matter what the circumstances


No they don't. That's the kind of mentality that creates an amoral welfare state which funds an entire unemployed ghetto-dwelling class that spends their time committing crimes, spreading disease, and having sex -- when not resting comfortably in prisons that cost more than hotels.

It is the top tier of earners who pay for most of that welfare. So I'm not about to stop complaining about it.

[gogurtdynasty]

and it's the mentality you project that keeps children ignorant to sexual health and causes problems in the first place...

[raconteur213]

As an INTJ, I see sex as purely physical enjoyment. This makes it hard to connect with emotional types.

[TheLastMohican]

Also... anybody who bitches about teens having sex is a retard.(don't take this too personally because i skimmed the topic and did not pay attention to who said what so no... if you're thinking it this is not directed specifically towards yourself) No ifs and or butts... you're retarded. They are freakin' young adults. They have not learned their repercussions, they have not learned what it really means, hell they barely enjoy it! They are just young, wanting to grow up fast and see sexuality as being the gateway to the adult world. It's not their fault for being curious about something that's so hyped up. Chewing out a youth for having sex is like bitching at somebody for eating fast food... its pointless and not your business. I worked at the Department of Public Health in highschool doing peer pregnancy and STD prevention, I was the counselor for ages 12-19. I've seen it all and i could bitch for days about the way i wish people would act, but they're still human and don't deserve to be treated poorly just because they made a choice based on what they've learned in their personal history. Try educating yourself and share your knowledge if you really want to help anything... no matter how much you complain it won't make things like this go your way

There is some truth in that, that sex is so hyped up by society and the media that teenagers will grow up chomping at the bit. That is sad. However, there is nothing retarded about seeing something wrong with that situation. It is unreasonable to say that they should not be held accountable for their actions. Especially with the sex ed in the schools these days (although I think it goes too far), they should have plenty of warning about the dangers of promiscuity.

Alright, now i read some others posts... How in the world do you expect parents to educate their children on sex? Most of the parents would be too ignorant or too embarrassed to give their children a legitimate explanation to the subject or truthful answers to their questions...

Oh, boy...is that a serious question? Parents handled it through the millennia just fine, long before we had condom class in the schools. Why can't they now?





TheLastMohican added to this post, 31 minutes and 22 seconds later...


You don't get out much, do you? Here's an idea, if 99.99% of the population disagrees with you. . .maybe you should take their collective opinion more seriously.

I get out plenty. I should now what I am talking about here; I am a teen (17-year-old male with plenty of friends of a similar mindset).
FYI, 99.99% is a gross exaggeration. Check this out:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Note that in this 2003 study, only 47% of high school students reported having had sexual intercourse. That is of course terribly high, but not nearly as high as you seem to think. There are plenty of smart, cautious teens out there make the right choice. I do not know what kind of hoodlums you are accustomed to dealing with, but it seems to have given you an extremely biased opinion today's youth.


Oooookaaaay. . .cuz they knew the risks, right? Should we refuse medical treatment to people who get into car accidents? Just because it was completely not their fault, they knew the risks when they decided to drive, so they shouldn't get treatement.

No, that is a ridiculous comparison. (Possibly brought on by my faulty wording.)
Those in car accidents a) often have life-threatening injuries, which should be treated regardless of money or fault, and b) are normally expected to pay for their medical bills.
What I was referring to was the common situation of a teen getting an STD (not life-threatening; there are some that require treatment) and then expecting others (normally his parents) to cover his treatment because he is under 18. I am saying that the parents should have no obligation to pay for that treatment if the teen knowingly took the risk. Sometimes the disease is not only sexually transmitted, and might pose a risk to the other family members. In that case it is necessary to get rid of it, if possible. But if the teen is the only one feeling the consequences? Then sure, let him suffer. Teens must learn to take care of the problems they create, and unless the teen can pay for his own treatment, then he should know to avoid sex.



What are you talking about? How would a guy who got an STD get special treatment just because he's underage? He'd go the the dermatologist and get some cream or some pills just like everyone else.

From his parents, or the welfare system. Those under 18 are not considered legally responsible for most things, and it all falls on the parents. That is wrong. Read above.

[gogurtdynasty]

no, they did not educate throughout all of history...

Are you kidding me?

They used fear tactics rather than information




Also... Who cares if they go too far in school... you realize parents can sign a nifty waver excluding children from sex ed.

I don't even see how they go too far... there's so much important information outside of the established curriculum. You don't learn ANY sociology regarding sex (which i could see as being too far for public school) They really do only teach you the bear minimum. I think learning as much as you can is important, even if children are not sexually active by their own accord 1/4 boys and 1/3 girls are raped by the time they're 20 years old. What happens when these situations happen? Let's just say *insert girl you know here* gets raped. The typical teenager will experience shame shame and is too embarrassed to do anything about it (include talking to a health professional) and she gets pregnant/stds/psychological damage and she's also grown up in a society where sex is wrong so she tells nobody (its too bad this is pretty realistic) She has no idea where to go for help, Shes afraid of being seen as a slut if she tells anybody... Now if the same girl were educated she may realize that it was not her fault, she would know that 1/3 girls is raped, have information on things like catalyst and other organizations that revolve around rape counseling, and domestic violence cases.

There's never a situation that education on any topic (especially your own body) is bad in my opinion Unless you're teaching children destructive methods of world domination i'd say that learning is always for the better

This reminds me of Christians who wont let their children take biology because they cover evolution for a week and a half

[TheLastMohican]

no, they did not educate throughout all of history...

Are you kidding me?

They used fear tactics rather than information

They used enough information so that the kids knew how to have sex and that sex resulted in pregnancies, and all the basics. That is plenty.
As for the scare tactics, they used to say "Wait until marriage or *insert 19th century threat here*," and it worked well enough. When it failed, there was an angry father with a shotgun, and a wedding followed. Good enough. Those methods kept the STD rates, teen pregnancy rates and molestation rates far below today's levels.


Also... Who cares if they go too far in school... you realize parents can sign a nifty waver excluding children from sex ed.

Good to know that. So perhaps there is yet hope. Unfortunately, most parents would not bother to look into it. They just accept whatever the schools do as right. (I said most parents, not you.)

I don't even see how they go too far... there's so much important information outside of the established curriculum. You don't learn ANY sociology regarding sex (which i could see as being too far for public school) They really do only teach you the bear minimum.

Eh...debatable. I think the bare minimum is the biological facts of the reproductive system. STD's could be covered along with other diseases, with just the mention that they can be transmitted sexually. There is no need to include condoms and birth control and oral sex and all the other social oddities in the curriculum. Those are for the people who have decided to engage in sexual activity. Do you think we should also include in the curriculum tips about how to alleviate hangovers? The kids shouldn't be drinking in the first place, so why don't we start there?

I think learning as much as you can is important, even if children are not sexually active by their own accord 1/4 boys and 1/3 girls are raped by the time they're 20 years old.

Whoa. Would you mind telling me where on earth you got that statistic? :suspicious:

What happens when these situations happen? Let's just say *insert girl you know here* gets raped. The typical teenager will experience shame shame and is too embarrassed to do anything about it (include talking to a health professional) and she gets pregnant/stds/psychological damage and she's also grown up in a society where sex is wrong so she tells nobody (its too bad this is pretty realistic) She has no idea where to go for help, Shes afraid of being seen as a slut if she tells anybody... Now if the same girl were educated she may realize that it was not her fault, she would know that 1/3 girls is raped, have information on things like catalyst and other organizations that revolve around rape counseling, and domestic violence cases.

My INTJ-ness might be getting in the way here; how could someone think that being raped makes her a slut or at fault? And how would the extra education make a difference if the person is already capable of such illogical thinking? (BTW, your ploy of making me think of a girl I know does not create any extra sympathy or emotional grab. Nice try, though.)

This reminds me of Christians who wont let their children take biology because they cover evolution for a week and a half

In many cases the parents can teach biology better and faster at home. If they can't, but have objections to the evolution in the curriculum then I think they should have the kids take the course anyway but explain to them there own views on the subject to avoid having them "brainwashed" or whatever they are afraid of.

[gogurtdynasty]

... i got my statistics when i worked for the department of public health durring a seminar provided by catalyst (they do counseling and education for domestic violence and sexual crimes). I'm sorry but there is nooooooo way you're going to convince me that not educating young adults on sexual health and freaking CONDOMS... std and pregnancy prevention is like... a passion for me (as strange as it sounds) I walk around educating anybody i can find :) I also think having sex is part of being whole human and i see nothing wrong with teenagers having sex as long as they protect themselves. and anyways not everybody is an INTJ who enjoys looking into things and learning on their own accord so without teaching this in school how would adults ever learn valid information... Most people can't even afford health care to learn from their provider and given that theres no way that they would be able to give you sufficient information Also STDS don't come only from sex... you can get them from kissing, sharing drinks. You can get almost every STD in your Eyes and Mouth... last time i checked on a kinky night most people don't take a cock in the eye And to top that off You're a male... HELLO youre about 1/10th as likely to contract an STD than your female counterpart (you have a small hole, a vagina is a giant mucous membrane) and you're not the one getting pregnant It makes me sad knowing that a huge reason why our country is so poorly educated on the topic of sex is just because of a small percentage of people who are afraid of their own bodies

[blueback]

But Blueback, you got 1/4 teen girls with an STD. Half of Black girl teens with an STD. Those are TEENS. That is a direct result of the slutiness of today's society.


What exactly does "the sluttiness" of today's society mean? You started out using numbers but then you veered off into undefined territory.


You endorse that? That is your ideal of women? Those things are NOT cured with a pill or a cream.


Those things, STD? Yeah, some of them are.
Are you trying to make it look like I approve of disease? That's lame. I said that there is no hope of ever getting teenagers to stop having sex. I didn't cast judgement on it and I didn't say anything about STDs.


I think it's a fucked up situation where a good chunk of the females are polluted with disease before most men (not the popular hotties in high school) ever meet them.


Yeah, I agree. It actually makes it harder to have a normal relationship with women because I'm well aware of the fact that they might have a killer like HIV and not even know it. Hell, I guess I could have it and not know it. In the future we're gonna have to have condoms surgically implanted at birth.


And that pollution drives medical costs. Increases AIDS rates. And requires new gov. programs which rich guys like me (who worked their ass off while the others were fucking) are mostly paying for.


ATo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . .I agree with Rand too, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to make money. You knew the options and you choose your path. You can still drop out of the rat-race any time you want and get into one of those comfy slums and have some sex.


Frankly I say fuck that. If you can't keep your pants on until you're 18 you won't have the self-discipline to accomplish anything else.


Cuz that's what teenagers are known for is discipline. You are complaining about the exact same thing that old people have complained about for thousands of years. Look at Bush. That guy is worthless and he still became president of the united states.


Go move to a slum in Mexico and stop living on my dime. No surprise America rots into a consumerist hell-hole with most people in debt, producing fake paper profits, and using up the worlds energy resources to power our self-indulgent lifestyle.


For a businessman you sound kind of anti-capitalist. Maybe capitalism is a zero-sum game.


Thing that bothers me most -- what is the point of being a hard working man, getting successful, and finding the only women left to choose from are diseased whores?


Are you done feeling sorry for yourself yet? You're not the only good person in the world.

[iamnotspock]

I'll give you last word Blueback. But FYI, I already dropped out of the rat race.

[TheLastMohican]

... i got my statistics when i worked for the department of public health durring a seminar provided by catalyst (they do counseling and education for domestic violence and sexual crimes).

According to this abuse awareness web site, 18% of women surveyed reported experiencing a rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the statistics you gave might have been including molestation, harrassment, etc., all the sexual assaults of a lesser degree.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 2 seconds later...

I'll give you last word Blueback. But FYI, I already dropped out of the rat race.

What? You're dropping out now and leaving me alone to deal with these people? Just when you were pwning so thoroughly...





TheLastMohican added to this post, 2 minutes and 41 seconds later...

You're not the only good person in the world.

Right, he's not; there are two of us. :laugh:

[iamnotspock]

What? You're dropping out now and leaving me alone to deal with these people?

LOL. But with that titanium armor, Mohican, I think you will make it... ;-)

[sriv]

I think the best course of teaching teens about sex is purely objectively. Schools and parents should just tell teens everything about sex without opinion. They should tell them how the experience was for them, how it may be for other people, and what all the possible consequences are. Give the teen everything about the topic and let him/her make the decision.

On the topic of STD's, the fear tactics along with unbiased information are perfectly legit. Do you want an STD? Does anyone want STD's? Then what is wrong with dissuading someone from getting STD's?

Lets try to back down on inaccurate statistics. Most people know the statistics anyway and it will not shock them.

Regarding my position as an INTJ---I think that sex is an irrational hobby/past-time. I also understand that some people enjoy taking the risk and having the pleasure and experience. I think that porn is as far as anyone should go, sex is just too much risk.

I also am not saying that sex should be banned. It is necessary for reproduction, but should be stopped at that. Our bodies evolved an intense pleasure of it so that we would be motivated to reproduce more, but now more than ever we need to reproduce less.

[TheLastMohican]

LOL. But with that titanium armor, Mohican, I think you will make it... ;-)

It's platinum. Titanium is for wusses like Iron Man.

[gogurtdynasty]

According to this abuse awareness web site, 18% of women surveyed reported experiencing a rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the statistics you gave might have been including molestation, harrassment, etc., all the sexual assaults of a lesser degree.

How does education in schools not apply to molestation? You can get pregnant or gonorrhea from your father as easily as you can from the boy next door.

[blueback]

i like quite a few people actually,


Just not teenagers or adults.


rational people...tend not to like people who do or say things because 'everybody else does it' or quote statistics of how many do something so they feel justified in doing it too....


Just because something correlates, doesn't mean one thing causes another.

Do you take baths? Do you eat? Do you throw balls with your hands and not your feet? If you do any of those things, you could quote statistics which show that everyone else does them too, so does that mean you are only following the crowd? Or rather, does it mean that you decided on your own that they were good things to do, and they just so happen to be so obvious that everyone else reached the same conclusion too?


i'm not part of the herd. Not much use for anyone who is.


Yeah, I'm an INTJ too. However, I don't take myself nearly as seriously as you seem to take yourself. As I'm sure you'll agree, INTJs don't much value any one particular opinion. Well, I apply that standard equally to all people, including myself. It is important to differentiate between things in your head that got their through chance and things that got there through rigorous analysis. Just because I'm naturally inclined to do the opposite of what everyone else does doesn't mean I don't try to learn from everyone else. I'm an individualist, but I still file my taxes like everyone else. Not because they do it, but because it is a good idea.


Nothing wrong with reproducing, or sex for that matter...but it becoming just a search for pleasure...or the guiding force in your life and relationships...might as well be an animal.


If that's what you meant then you should have said that. I don't know why you didn't, you seem smart.

If you have a problem with the way some people use the act of sex then don't say you have a problem with sex, be specific. If someone is 'just searching for pleasure" then they are probably misusing a lot of other activities, not just sex. You have a problem with that mentality, not with sex.


That's all they think about...reproduction, and pleasure...running from pain. Something you stated earlier in one of your posts...sorry blue, not everyone is driven by basic pavlovian responses.


Technically "pavlovian" means conditioned reflex, not instinct, but I get your point.

Are you claiming to be one of these imaginary people who doesn't respond to pleasure and pain? Are you claiming to have met one of these people? Either way, that's a pretty bold claim.

Everyone is driven by pain and pleasure. Even you. You're not part of the herd because if you see yourself doing things that are herd-like you feel pain and if you see yourself doing things that are not-herd-like you feel pleasure.


civilised is exactly what i said it was, has nothing to do with what you posted as a 'follow up'


All you said about what civilised was was "controlling your impulses, hormones, and instincts." You left a lot to be interpreted so I interpreted. If you want to get more specific please, don't let me stand in your way. . .oh wait, I'm not.


Controlling our impulses (human) is what makes us different from animals,


No, rationality is what makes us different from animals and rationality I us to control our instincts.

A human is still a human even if they never make a more complicated decision than doing whatever they feel like at the moment. You might argue about their value, but they are still not an animal. However, I agree with your implied statement that those who can control their instincts through discipline are more valuable.


see the difference between rational debate? and...well...whatever you're try to do.


Hey, just because I get bored trying to explain this stuff and spice it up doesn't mean I'm not being rational. If you leave gaps in your arguments big enough to drive a party-bus through then I am going to party in your arguments. I think that's one of the best metaphors I've ever come up with.

[colmdubh]

I say just send the kid home with a questionnaire about sex to interview their parents with. I mean ideally I think the parents should be the ones to talk to their kids about it. Once you get schools involved then the idea of 'sex' has to be standardized...do we include this or that? What if an example is considered too graphic or vulgar but neccesary to teach? There will always be one group or another unhappy about what the school is teaching. You could blame the 'media' as well but there is no way they are going to go back to 1950's programming...sex sells as well as violence...I think in schools students should be taught the science of sex but not say, how to put a condom on a bananna...if you don't want your kid having sex then discuss it with them or at least discuss peer pressure and how to deal with it...from the last posts I've read there seems to be a lot of pointless hairsplitting going on

[blueback]

I get out plenty. I should now what I am talking about here; I am a teen (17-year-old male with plenty of friends of a similar mindset).


So plenty of your friends think that teenagers shouldn't have sex. . .great! I guess I'm totally wrong and teenagers will all stop having sex now that they all agree with you.


only 47% of high school students reported having had sexual intercourse. That is of course terribly high, but not nearly as high as you seem to think.


I didn't say anything about teens, I was talking about the entire human population. Everyone agrees that teenagers are going to have sex.


There are plenty of smart, cautious teens out there make the right choice. I do not know what kind of hoodlums you are accustomed to dealing with, but it seems to have given you an extremely biased opinion today's youth.


Yeah, I derive all my conclusions for the entire population based on a careful sampling of my close friends. <-sarcasm

You can all agree on whatever "right choice" you want, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to agree with you. Teens are right at the age where biology is telling them to pump out babies because their life expectancy is only 30 years. It's only very recently in our history that 20 has been 1/4 of our lifespan.


No, that is a ridiculous comparison. (Possibly brought on by my faulty wording.)
Those in car accidents a) often have life-threatening injuries, which should be treated regardless of money or fault, and b) are normally expected to pay for their medical bills.


It's not ridiculous based on the information you provided. You only cited risk and ability to pay.

a) should the ones with non-life threatening injuries still receive treatment?
b) right, little sally johnson, who is only 16, is going to pay for the surgery that put her jaw back together.


a teen getting an STD (not life-threatening; there are some that require treatment) and then expecting others (normally his parents) to cover his treatment because he is under 18. I am saying that the parents should have no obligation to pay for that treatment if the teen knowingly took the risk.


According to the CDC: "The higher prevalence of STDs among adolescents also reflects multiple barriers to accessing quality STD prevention services, including lack of insurance or other ability to pay, lack of transportation, discomfort with facilities and services designed for adults, and concerns about confidentiality. Recent estimates suggest that while representing 25% of the ever sexually active population, 15 to 24 years of age acquire nearly half of all new STDs" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When you have kids, you accept the fact that they are going to do stupid things and you are going to bail them out. Well, maybe you don't, but all the responsible parents do. There is a big difference between encouraging them to be independant individuals and abandoning them with no resources.


But if the teen is the only one feeling the consequences? Then sure, let him suffer. Teens must learn to take care of the problems they create, and unless the teen can pay for his own treatment, then he should know to avoid sex.


You're being idealistic, not realistic. We can sit around all day and wag our chins about how we wish the world was, but at the end of the day we have to go out and interact with the world the way it really is. In the real world, parent's who get tax credits for their dependants are expected to take care of their dependants.


From his parents, or the welfare system. Those under 18 are not considered legally responsible for most things, and it all falls on the parents. That is wrong. Read above.


Okay, what age should people be legally emancipated from their parents? 17? 16? 15? 8? You're being awfully free with your condemnations but awfully tight-lipped about your solutions. Is that because it's easier to throw stones?

[TheLastMohican]

Just not teenagers or adults.

He seems to tolerate me just fine. (I am 17.)

[blueback]

He said it, I just called him on it.

[TheLastMohican]

How does education in schools not apply to molestation? You can get pregnant or gonorrhea from your father as easily as you can from the boy next door.

I am not talking about that. That all applies, but I am simply pointing that it is not true that 1/3 of girls are raped by age 20.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 21 seconds later...

He said it, I just called him on it.

Said what? He said he does like quite a few people. I guess he might just mean toddlers...?

[blueback]

so...behaving like an animal is justified because that's how it's always been? Teenagers don't take care of the trouble they get into, hell, not even most adults do.

[TheLastMohican]

I didn't say anything about teens, I was talking about the entire human population. Everyone agrees that teenagers are going to have sex.

Okay, a moment for clarification...I never said that "no teens will have sex." It is the unfortunate fact that almost half of them do. But you should say "some teens will have sex," not the ambiguous blanket statement "teens will have sex."



Yeah, I derive all my conclusions for the entire population based on a careful sampling of my close friends. <-sarcasm

Your sarcasm is misplaced. Obviously I am basing my conclusions on statistics and facts. The only reason I brought up my friends was to counter your claim that I "don't get out much," and presumably do not know what teens are like.

It's not ridiculous based on the information you provided. You only cited risk and ability to pay.

a) should the ones with non-life threatening injuries still receive treatment?
b) right, little sally johnson, who is only 16, is going to pay for the surgery that put her jaw back together.

a) If the people pay, then yes. There is no reason to deny medical treatment the person has money for the services.
b) Again you are referring to a car accident. Unless Sally Johnson defied her parents (or the law) by driving, then she did not have sufficient fault to deny her the jaw surgery.


When you have kids, you accept the fact that they are going to do stupid things and you are going to bail them out. Well, maybe you don't, but all the responsible parents do. There is a big difference between encouraging them to be independant individuals and abandoning them with no resources.

They will do stupid things, yes, and will often require bailing-out. But that should not continue until the 18th birthday. Long before then, the kid must take the consequences for his actions. When and for how long this transition occurs depends on the kid's maturity, and the parents' preference. But at some point, when the kid understands the risk he is taking by defying his parents, then he should not feel entitled to help from his parents when the consequences come. It's your mess, so you clean it up. This is the more responsible method, since otherwise many children will be totally unprepared for the accountability that arrives with the 18th birthday.
The self-responsibility will not kill them; they will learn.

Okay, what age should people be legally emancipated from their parents? 17? 16? 15? 8?

I do not have a strong opinion on the legal emancipation age. But I did not say anything about that; I am talking about the parents' accountability for their childrens' actions. Children should face legal consequences earlier, and if it can be proven that the parents were not involved in the child's criminal activities, they should not have to pay his fines. If the kid cannot pay (as are most cases), then he should earn the money through community service. He would miss school, have less play time, etc., but that is the whole point. Being a criminal is not supposed to be rewarding, no matter what Free Willy taught you.


You're being awfully free with your condemnations but awfully tight-lipped about your solutions. Is that because it's easier to throw stones?

I might say the same to you.

[sriv]

Seems like this is an intense debate, the person who accepts society vs the person who is trying to improve it. I wonder which side I will join...not a hard decision.

Socialist countries that have free healthcare for the whole population have the obligation of avidly discouraging teenage sex. I believe Clinton is trying to get healthcare for the whole population. If she becomes president, do not be surprised if we have more abstinence and "say no" advertisements.

Teenagers will always have sex. We know. We should try to stop them without sparking their rebelliousness. There is a difference between "you have a choice on what you want to do" and "you are making a retarded decision". Where you draw the line between them is each person's opinion. Some will not try to stop a person who is trying to commit suicide. Most will. I for one would try to stop my friend from making a bad decision, such as having sex.

There is nothing wrong with being idealistic; there is everything wrong with being irrationally or impractically idealistic. Banning sex is impractical. Discouraging it is not. Parents should take care of their children. If the children arent responsible for their actions, it makes sense that they are intitled to fewer rights. If the parent does not want to suffer for the teenager's mistake then the parent has to tell him/her that they will punish him/her if they do anything of the like that would endanger their financial status like having to undergo medication or surgery because of a STD. Imagine being a parent of a child with a STD. You never liked your child all that much and now he/she gets a STD (discluding rape scenario).

My reaction: WTF. I would take away every single one of his/her privaledges legally possible until he/she runs away from home. Then I would be relieved of a burden.

I hope this clears up some of the easily resolvable debate.

[TheLastMohican]

You can like people and still notice their flaws. However he should be made to clarify that he did not mean all teenagers. Hear that, DeadSpace?





TheLastMohican added to this post, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Seems like this is an intense debate, the person who accepts society vs the person who is trying to improve it. I wonder which side I will join...not a hard decision.


Intense debates; my specialty. :thumbsup:

*continues to read post*





TheLastMohican added to this post, 5 minutes and 15 seconds later...

Seems like this is an intense debate, the person who accepts society vs the person who is trying to improve it. I wonder which side I will join...not a hard decision.

Socialist countries that have free healthcare for the whole population have the obligation of avidly discouraging teenage sex. I believe Clinton is trying to get healthcare for the whole population. If she becomes president, do not be surprised if we have more abstinence and "say no" advertisements.

Teenagers will always have sex. We know. We should try to stop them without sparking their rebelliousness. There is a difference between "you have a choice on what you want to do" and "you are making a retarded decision". Where you draw the line between them is each person's opinion. Some will not try to stop a person who is trying to commit suicide. Most will. I for one would try to stop my friend from making a bad decision, such as having sex.

There is nothing wrong with being idealistic; there is everything wrong with being irrationally or impractically idealistic. Banning sex is impractical. Discouraging it is not. Parents should take care of their children. If the children arent responsible for their actions, it makes sense that they are intitled to fewer rights. If the parent does not want to suffer for the teenager's mistake then the parent has to tell him/her that they will punish him/her if they do anything of the like that would endanger their financial status like having to undergo medication or surgery because of a STD. Imagine being a parent of a child with a STD. You never liked your child all that much and now he/she gets a STD (discluding rape scenario).

My reaction: WTF. I would take away every single one of his/her privaledges legally possible until he/she runs away from home. Then I would be relieved of a burden.

I hope this clears up some of the easily resolvable debate.

Good post. All those who wish to bypass my lengthy blow-trading with blueback should read this. It fairly accurately sums up my opinion.

[blueback]

Your sarcasm is misplaced. Obviously I am basing my conclusions on statistics and facts. The only reason I brought up my friends was to counter your claim that I "don't get out much," and presumably do not know what teens are like.


My sarcasm was directed at your assumption that my hoodlum friends were tainting my opinion of teens.


Again you are referring to a car accident.


Yeah, I am refering to a car accident. You still haven't explained why that is a bad comparison except that it makes your idea look silly.


When and for how long this transition occurs depends on the kid's maturity, and the parents' preference.


Oh. . .so now you're saying it's complicated. At least you got there eventually.


But at some point, when the kid understands the risk he is taking by defying his parents, then he should not feel entitled to help from his parents when the consequences come.


Deying one's parents is the definition of teenager. Just ask a parent. That doesn't mean that it frees the parent from their obligation to care for their prodgeny.


It's your mess, so you clean it up. This is the more responsible method, since otherwise many children will be totally unprepared for the accountability that arrives with the 18th birthday.
The self-responsibility will not kill them; they will learn.


If they get an STD that goes untreated it might kill them.
I agree that a lot of people aren't as mature as they could be when they reach 18, but I disagree with your idea that abandoning them will somehow make them more mature.


I do not have a strong opinion on the legal emancipation age. . .Children should face legal consequences earlier,


The emancipation age is the standard for where children face legal consequences. So, you know, it's important. If you think the current standards are wrong you should really suggest some replacements. "Everyone should be more mature" isn't a standard.


and if it can be proven that the parents were not involved in the child's criminal activities, they should not have to pay his fines.


Are we still talking about sex?


If the kid cannot pay (as are most cases), then he should earn the money through community service. He would miss school, have less play time, etc., but that is the whole point. Being a criminal is not supposed to be rewarding, no matter what Free Willy taught you.


Do you really think denying him an education will help him not become a criminal? You're only 17, so I'll cut you some slack, but you should look into taking a basic law class. You are comletely ignoring many of the basic considerations that have to be weighed when determining fault and punishment.

I'll even help you out by giving you some hints. Look into things like due process, property rights and government actors.


I might say the same to you.


You could, but it wouldn't mean anything. I think the system works fine the way it is. Therefore, I am not advocating changing it, therefore I don't need to be specific about any solutions. You, on the other hand, are advocating change, so you need to be specific.

[sriv]

I am loving this! True INTJ talk. Blueback, take a look at my post. It is a better way of explaining Mohican's stance on the issue.

Also Blueback, are you satisfied with the STD rate America has and how AIDS is skyrocketing?

[blueback]

I do agree with the main thrust of your post.

That's a loaded question, I am going to 'mu' it.

I don't like it when humans suffer. I don't like it when humans make bad decisions. I don't like it when resources are wasted. Ultimately, I don't think that STDs threaten the things I want to do, so I don't have much of an opinion on them. I always wear a rubber, cuz I don't want to catch one, and I think everyone else should too. I am also choosy about who I sleep with, for many reasons, and I think everyone else should be too. Do I expect everyone else to wear a rubber and be choosy about their sexual partners. . .absolutely not. Do I condemn them for their bad decisions. . .usually not.

I think that most people don't have the slightest chance of ever understanding the world as well as I do. Since I have a better understanding, I really can't think much less of them for acting on their inferior understanding. Most people don't make use of their rationality, they just run on instinct. Instinct drives them to have sex and the presence of STDs makes that sex more dangerous. They could have just as much sex, without the danger, if there were no STDs. I think it's more likely we will eradicate STDs then get people to stop having sex. I think we should focus our efforts there.

Life is about the pursuit of happiness. For people who run on instinct, sex is one of the only things that makes them happy. How can I tell them they are wrong when denying them sex would decrease their quality of life and not improve mine?

[gogurtdynasty]

I am not talking about that. That all applies, but I am simply pointing that it is not true that 1/3 of girls are raped by age 20.





from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Occurrence of Rape

Rape is a serious problem in the United States today. The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.

Above is a chart showing the estimated rape rate per 100,000 people in the United States between 1960 and 1998. The rape rate in the US in 1998 was 34.4 per 100,000 persons. In 1997 there was a decrease of 7% in the overall crime rate, but the rate of rape and sexual assault did not decline at all. (National Crime Victimization Survey, 1997)

Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault (National Crime Victimization Survey, 1997). A study among college women has shown that 1 out of every 5 college age women report being forced to have sexual intercourse. (1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey) 22% of all women say that they have been forced to do sexual things against their will, where only 3% of men admit to ever forcing themselves on a woman. (Laumann, 1994)

excuse me 1/5... which is not a huge difference... and that's not counting all of the women who don't report... which probably brings it up to 1/4 or 1/3

[sriv]

*Quote of Blueback's post*

I think you are being a little bit egotistical on the statement "I think that most people don't have the slightest chance of ever understanding the world as well as I do." I say this because for a minority of people, that I consider superior/privaledged, life is not the pursuit of happiness.

1-Majority of people, pursuit of happiness
2-Quite a lot. Friggin survival and reproduction, pursuit of comfortability.
3-Minority. Pursuit of power, honor, prestige, glory, and superior reputation.
4-Minority. Pursuit of knowledge to pass on to others.
5-Small minority. Utilitarianists working to make the world a better place.

You may catagorize some of these under happiness, but most are not. Since I belong to 4 and 5, I see no benefit to having sex except for reproduction. Denying sex no, discouraging it yes. Discouraging it for the purpose of eradicating STDs. Whats to stop more STDs from coming up if we keep banging here and there and everywhere?

If we eventually have free healthcare for everyone, you may change your opinion because the more STDs the society has the more you have to tax in to the government to pay doctors and insurance companies. I think in a utilitarian viewpoint and from my perspective we are wasting money on preventing and finding cures for diseases that should not be here and are spreading rapidly.

Gogurtdynasty: I would oppose such a PACT if it ever came to Pennsylvania and anyone that doesnt have STDs should.

[gogurtdynasty]

you already get free healthcare for STDS and Pregnancy prevention in california through PACT

It's sweet

[TheLastMohican]

excuse me 1/5... which is not a huge difference... and that's not counting all of the women who don't report... which probably brings it up to 1/4 or 1/3

"By age 20" is crucial, and when we are speaking of statistics, there is a large difference between 20% and 33%.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 0 minutes and 53 seconds later...

you already get free healthcare for STDS and Pregnancy prevention in california through PACT

It's sweet

It is that kind of welfare catering to irresponsibility that irks me most.

[gogurtdynasty]

well, excuse me for confusing a statistic i studied years ago

the numbers don't change my point that the statistics are far too high to not provide thorough education on sexual health. Even if a magic wave of abstainance swept over the world there are still things that we all need to know to lead a healthy happy life

[TheLastMohican]

I am loving this! True INTJ talk. Blueback, take a look at my post. It is a better way of explaining Mohican's stance on the issue.

Also Blueback, are you satisfied with the STD rate America has and how AIDS is skyrocketing?

I am glad you are loving it...unfortunately I am finding it a bit tedious. I have explained my position in a number of ways, yet the debate drags on...





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 7 seconds later...

well, excuse me for confusing a statistic i studied years ago

Very well. I don't mind if you mis-stated it as long it is cleared up now.

[sriv]

Lol. Forget the statistic. The only thing that is important is that sex is out of control in America. That is all that matters to this debate.

What is with people and insistency to drag pointless debates like a statistic on? (rhetorical)

[TheLastMohican]

*Quote of Blueback's post*

I think you are being a little bit egotistical on the statement "I think that most people don't have the slightest chance of ever understanding the world as well as I do." I say this because for a minority of people, that I consider superior/privaledged, life is not the pursuit of happiness.

1-Majority of people, pursuit of happiness
2-Quite a lot. Friggin survival and reproduction, pursuit of comfortability.
3-Minority. Pursuit of power, honor, prestige, glory, and superior reputation.
4-Minority. Pursuit of knowledge to pass on to others.
5-Small minority. Utilitarianists working to make the world a better place.

You may catagorize some of these under happiness, but most are not. Since I belong to 4 and 5, I see no benefit to having sex except for reproduction. Denying sex no, discouraging it yes. Discouraging it for the purpose of eradicating STDs. Whats to stop more STDs from coming up if we keep banging here and there and everywhere?

If we eventually have free healthcare for everyone, you may change your opinion because the more STDs the society has the more you have to tax in to the government to pay doctors and insurance companies. I think in a utilitarian viewpoint and from my perspective we are wasting money on preventing and finding cures for diseases that should not be here and are spreading rapidly.

Gogurtdynasty: I would oppose such a PACT if it ever came to Pennsylvania and anyone that doesnt have STDs should.

You read my mind! Just except that I have plenty of #3 in me, too, albeit a more behind-the-scenes approach.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 2 minutes and 28 seconds later...

Lol. Forget the statistic. The only thing that is important is that sex is out of control in America. That is all that matters to this debate.

What is with people and insistency to drag pointless debates like a statistic on? (rhetorical)

*ignores the word "rhetorical"*

I believe it is not pointless, because I otherwise people would see the statistic and assume it was correct. The world would be a better place if only true statistics were spread around.

[sriv]

Assuming we are looking at the big picture then truthfulness is always sought, but for the purposes of this debate, the implication of the statistic is all that matters.

We need something else to debate on! Debate withdrawl...urk...choking.

[TheLastMohican]

Yeah, I am refering to a car accident. You still haven't explained why that is a bad comparison except that it makes your idea look silly.

*sighs and checks watch* Do I really have to explain the difference between teenage sex and driving a car?

Okay, fine. Driving is normally at the parents' approval, and it is a practical and fairly necessary practice. Car accidents usually cannot be blamed entirely on one person, and they are almost always accidents, not willful
decisions. When a car accident happens, the kid might be mostly responsible, but mistakes happen, and are to be expected when operating a vehicle.

Sex, on the other hand, is not had due to urging from the parents (at least I hope not), and it is in no way a practical or necessary activity. It carries high risks, and the teenagers receive ample warning about these risks. If the parents have instructed the teen not to have sex, then any diseases the teen catches while the defying the parents are his responsibility, and as long as he is the only one affected by the disease, and is not at risk of being killed by it, the parents are under no obligation to help him treat it.

Deying one's parents is the definition of teenager. Just ask a parent. That doesn't mean that it frees the parent from their obligation to care for their prodgeny.

The last time I defied my parents was at age three, and my parents still tease me about it.
If the kid is mature enough, then it does. Parents are not responsible for their blundering 30-year-old children, and they should not be responsible for the defiant actions of their older teenagers, either. There comes a point when the parents cannot physically control their children.

If they get an STD that goes untreated it might kill them.
I agree that a lot of people aren't as mature as they could be when they reach 18, but I disagree with your idea that abandoning them will somehow make them more mature.

I already clarified multiple times that this does not apply to life-threatening diseases. But if it just causes the teen discomfort, then leave it. He can work to earn money to pay for his own treatment if he wants it. He brought it upon himself against the parents' advice, and it is his problem to deal with.



The emancipation age is the standard for where children face legal consequences. So, you know, it's important. If you think the current standards are wrong you should really suggest some replacements. "Everyone should be more mature" isn't a standard.

It happens to be the same age, but it does not have to be that way. Kids can still be "tried as adults" for crimes. I think they should also have to pay their own fines at younger ages. How young is up for debate. I think about 12 is fair, but I might change that opinion based on some other points.

That legal aspect is hard to choose an age for, since kids are different maturities at different ages. Mostly I was thinking about how parents should deal with their kids, but the government is another matter. The government cannot judge on a case-by-case basis what kind of consequences the kid is ready for.



Are we still talking about sex?

No, I digressed to cover some of that extra ground. Back to the subject!


Do you really think denying him an education will help him not become a criminal? You're only 17, so I'll cut you some slack, but you should look into taking a basic law class. You are comletely ignoring many of the basic considerations that have to be weighed when determining fault and punishment.

I'll even help you out by giving you some hints. Look into things like due process, property rights and government actors.

Being of an open mind, I will look into those things first and then get back to you on that...

You could, but it wouldn't mean anything. I think the system works fine the way it is. Therefore, I am not advocating changing it, therefore I don't need to be specific about any solutions. You, on the other hand, are advocating change, so you need to be specific.

A valid point. However, I am not advocating governmental upheaval to crack down on teenage sex. My first cause is to talk some sense into the other teenagers, but since that is quite hard to accomplish, I am advocating more parental involvement. That is on a personal, familial level. As for the solution when the parents cannot talk sense into the teens...well, there isn't one. Then you just have to let the teens experience the consequences, and they will learn the hard way. The more that happens, the more likely the other teens are to heed their parents' warnings. It is a domino effect, but you have to start it somewhere.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Assuming we are looking at the big picture then truthfulness is always sought, but for the purposes of this debate, the implication of the statistic is all that matters.

We need something else to debate on! Debate withdrawl...urk...choking.

Me too! I think I have said pretty much everything there is to say on this issue. I am beginning to understand why iamnotspock left.

[blueback]

*sighs and checks watch*


O RLY? Do you have somewhere to be? Don't imply that you're too busy to voluntarily answer a post in an online message board.


Car accidents usually cannot be blamed entirely on one person, and they are almost always accidents, not willful
decisions. When a car accident happens, the kid might be mostly responsible, but mistakes happen, and are to be expected when operating a vehicle.


Actually, they usually can be blamed almost entirely on one person. Yeah, I guess the term "car accident" should have been clear to me. (sarcasm) Most car accidents are caused by driving drunk, speeding and fatigue all of which are willful acts.


Sex, ... is in no way a practical or necessary activity.


Well, necessary might be debateable, but practical isn't. Sex is practical. It's a form of recreation, at least at the ages we're talking about. Motocross isn't necessary either, but it's a practical form of recreation. Technically, driving is more dangerous than having sex.


[sex] carries high risks, and the teenagers receive ample warning about these risks.


Just like they receive ample warning about the dangers of drunk driving, speeding, and not getting enough sleep.


If the parents have instructed the teen not to have sex, then any diseases the teen catches while the defying the parents are his responsibility, and as long as he is the only one affected by the disease, and is not at risk of being killed by it, the parents are under no obligation to help him treat it.


You're still not making sense. You're in this weird zone between specific and general in which all things seem possible. Are you saying that anything unfortunate that happens to a minor while doing anything that his parents told him not to do should not be treated? Are you saying that the parents only have to treat their child if their life is in danger?

If a parent doesn't ensure that their child gets medical treatment, even for non-life-threatening conditions, they would probably be guilty of child abuse. Are you saying that should change?


Parents are not responsible for their blundering 30-year-old children, and they should not be responsible for the defiant actions of their older teenagers, either. There comes a point when the parents cannot physically control their children.


Yeah, lets all make arguments that are obvious. Where did the idea of a parent being responsible for their 30-year old child come from? I think you're the first to mention it. Besides, if their child is legally retarded, and is still a legal dependant, they would be responsible for it.

There are legal avenues for parents to be relieved of responsibility for their children. Are you saying those should change?


I already clarified multiple times that this does not apply to life-threatening diseases. But if it just causes the teen discomfort, then leave it. He can work to earn money to pay for his own treatment if he wants it. He brought it upon himself against the parents' advice, and it is his problem to deal with.


Okay, lets think this through logically.
We have a teen, lets call him John, who knows all about the dangers of sex. His parents are very responsible, they've had the talk with him and they've specifically told him not to have sex. John goes out and has sex anyway. John gets an STD. John sheepishly admits to his parents what he did and that he needs to see a doctor. John's parents decide he needs to learn his lesson, so they tell him they aren't going to help him (in any way) get treatment for his STD. John, who already had a problem obeying his parents, now feels abandoned by them. Who is John going to turn to for support?

At this point no one knows what John is going to do, but the number of things he could do that are mature are far outnumbered by the number of things he could do that are decidedly not mature. Since he already demonstrated his poor decision making skills, do you really think he's going to choose a responsible route?

Additionally, do you really think it's a good idea to leave poor decision makers (like John) with untreated STDs? Do you think being abandoned by his parents is going to make him more likely to listen to their advice and not have sex?


I think they should also have to pay their own fines at younger ages. How young is up for debate. I think about 12 is fair, but I might change that opinion based on some other points.


So you want 12 year-olds to work to pay off fines for their crimes? Now you are talking about changing the child labor laws. Are you starting to see why implementing your idealistic vision is much more complicated than you have acknowledged so far?


My first cause is to talk some sense into the other teenagers, but since that is quite hard to accomplish, I am advocating more parental involvement.


You acknowledge that teenagers aren't going to listen to you but what makes you think parents will? Basically, you would be telling the parents "Hey, everything your kid is doing wrong is your fault, except when it isn't." How is that going to make any sense to them? It doesn't even make sense to me.


The more that happens, the more likely the other teens are to heed their parents' warnings. It is a domino effect, but you have to start it somewhere.


So you want to make examples out of the first teens through your system so that your system becomes unnecessary because all the other teens wise up and don't do the bad things that got those first teens into your system in the first place?

[TheLastMohican]

O RLY? Do you have somewhere to be? Don't imply that you're too busy to voluntarily answer a post in an online message board.

Well, I do have plenty else to do, and this debate is getting pretty old. I do not see any meeting of the minds here anytime soon; we seem to have rather mutually foreign opinions on this subject.

Thus, I am considering just dropping it. You only seem to be getting more frustrated, and I don't know where it all caps.

Normally I feel awkward leaving a post of any kind unanswered and hanging, but it's true, this is all voluntary.

[sriv]

I thought I finally got you two to agree on the something? Do you not agree with my post of compromising awesomeness? Then the argument is practically settled. What is going on now is just bickering.

Something that I want to keep going on bluebird's statement: "Sex is practical."

Some definitions of practicality:
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work"
"mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure"

Is sex practical?

My opinion is no. Sex should not be considered an ordinary activity, definitely not a business or work. Considering the other definition, sex is not exactly a great decision in terms of consequentially or procedurally. Bluebird, what do you mean by practical? Do you mean that lots of other people do it, so that justifies you can do it?

[DeadSpace]

Just not teenagers or adults.


No, have no problem with teenagers, or adult who think. Are capable of thought beyond rationalising their actions or motivations. How many people do you know that actually think? Use their brain for something other than excuses to get what they want.

Just because something correlates, doesn't mean one thing causes another.

Do you take baths? Do you eat? Do you throw balls with your hands and not your feet? If you do any of those things, you could quote statistics which show that everyone else does them too, so does that mean you are only following the crowd? Or rather, does it mean that you decided on your own that they were good things to do, and they just so happen to be so obvious that everyone else reached the same conclusion too?

i take nothing for granted, example you listed above are mostly common sense...and that is in short supply among much of humanity. (cf: jack ass series, or a rednecks famous last words 'hey billy bob...look whut i can do')
Everything i read or see, especially statistics, gets examined, if for no other reason than the possibility of an agenda behind it.



Yeah, I'm an INTJ too. However, I don't take myself nearly as seriously as you seem to take yourself. As I'm sure you'll agree, INTJs don't much value any one particular opinion. Well, I apply that standard equally to all people, including myself. It is important to differentiate between things in your head that got their through chance and things that got there through rigorous analysis. Just because I'm naturally inclined to do the opposite of what everyone else does doesn't mean I don't try to learn from everyone else. I'm an individualist, but I still file my taxes like everyone else. Not because they do it, but because it is a good idea.

Agrees

If that's what you meant then you should have said that. I don't know why you didn't, you seem smart.

If you have a problem with the way some people use the act of sex then don't say you have a problem with sex, be specific. If someone is 'just searching for pleasure" then they are probably misusing a lot of other activities, not just sex. You have a problem with that mentality, not with sex.

Yep

Technically "pavlovian" means conditioned reflex, not instinct, but I get your point.

Are you claiming to be one of these imaginary people who doesn't respond to pleasure and pain? Are you claiming to have met one of these people? Either way, that's a pretty bold claim.

Everyone is driven by pain and pleasure. Even you. You're not part of the herd because if you see yourself doing things that are herd-like you feel pain and if you see yourself doing things that are not-herd-like you feel pleasure.

Actually, i am, i think before i act...even if there's pain involved. That ability has saved me from losing an eye, whereas most would have pulled away from the pain...ripped out their eye...i stayed still, and thought about the situation. Thought before action, there is no delay even if instant action is required. Your mind can move much faster than your body. Cover the consequences of a chain of events before you act.

All you said about what civilised was was "controlling your impulses, hormones, and instincts." You left a lot to be interpreted so I interpreted. If you want to get more specific please, don't let me stand in your way. . .oh wait, I'm not.

As i stated, impulses, instinct, hormones, all drive people to do certain things, most often...the only thing their brain is used for...is to find reasons to allow, excuse, or rationalise those driven behaviors. The religious are a prime example. (i'm not btw, you kind of implied that with the 'no sex before marriage' poke). People who claim a faith they follow...make more rationalisations for their behavior of any group or type of people i've ever seen. Most common...'jesus will forgive me'. Thinking about your own impulses, no matter what they are to me is civilised behavior, animals don't think...they just do. They don't justify their actions...so technically, humans aren't animals. We have the ability to make excuses.



No, rationality is what makes us different from animals and rationality I us to control our instincts.

A human is still a human even if they never make a more complicated decision than doing whatever they feel like at the moment. You might argue about their value, but they are still not an animal. However, I agree with your implied statement that those who can control their instincts through discipline are more valuable.



Hey, just because I get bored trying to explain this stuff and spice it up doesn't mean I'm not being rational. If you leave gaps in your arguments big enough to drive a party-bus through then I am going to party in your arguments. I think that's one of the best metaphors I've ever come up with.

Bored? you hardly seem bored.

[TheLastMohican]

I thought I finally got you two to agree on the something? Do you not agree with my post of compromising awesomeness? Then the argument is practically settled. What is going on now is just bickering.

Blueback was still objecting to some of my ideas that were not covered in your post; but your comment is partly true. Maybe that is why I am finding it tedious.

Something that I want to keep going on bluebird's statement: "Sex is practical."

Some definitions of practicality:
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work"
"mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure"

Is sex practical?

My opinion is no. Sex should not be considered an ordinary activity, definitely not a business or work. Considering the other definition, sex is not exactly a great decision in terms of consequentially or procedurally. Bluebird, what do you mean by practical? Do you mean that lots of other people do it, so that justifies you can do it?

Yes, I was thinking basically the same thing, so now that you have done all the typing for me I will announce my agreement. ;)

[gogurtdynasty]

Can't we just talk about whackin' off or something?

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for this dead horse of ours

[TheLastMohican]

Can't we just talk about whackin' off or something?

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for this dead horse of ours

I am not familiar with that term, so I do not know if I want to talk about it.

[Colette]

I am not familiar with that term, so I do not know if I want to talk about it.

Hahaha. Where ya been all these years, TLM? :p

[TheLastMohican]

Hahaha. Where ya been all these years, TLM? :p

Wherever you were not.

Now somebody just tell me what it means.

[Colette]

Wherever you were not.

Now somebody just tell me what it means.

Masturbation.

[TheLastMohican]

Masturbation.

Seriously?

Well, that is a topic I find repulsive.

[Colette]

Seriously?

Well, that is a topic I find repulsive.

Y'know, you could try keeping your more extreme views to yourself. Might make things a little easier for you on forums.

Just a thought...

[TheLastMohican]

Y'know, you could try keeping your more extreme views to yourself. Might make things a little easier for you on forums.

Just a thought...

I am definitely not alone on that one.

[gogurtdynasty]

wtf... who hates masturbation....

That's just crazy

It's like meditation with a happy ending

[blueback]

It's like meditation with a happy ending

Ah ha ha ha! That is hilarious, do you mind if I use that line?

[gogurtdynasty]

Ah ha ha ha! That is hilarious, do you mind if I use that line?

Feel free

[sriv]

Beating a dead horse. In our case, to stay on the same topic too long and throw around things that are already done and over. The thought of masturbation is funny. I do not actually waste my time with it though.

[thod]

The last time I defied my parents was at age three, and my parents still tease me about it.


You rebel. Dont like sex, always obey parents. You just have to love the free thinkers you get around here.

[sriv]

Free thinking = Rebelliousness? Acting upon thought?

[TheLastMohican]

You rebel. Dont like sex, always obey parents. You just have to love the free thinkers you get around here.

I sense sarcasm. :laugh:

I think I am the free thinker here, though. I do not feel the need to conform to your "rebellious" ways. There is no point in rebelling unless you are rebelling against something unjust or illogical. Rebellion for its own sake is stupid.

[sriv]

I completely agree.
First of all, dont bite the hand that feeds you.
Second, if you dont bite the hand, they will feed you more.
I get off on things like chores because I am obediant to my parents. It is a mutual relationship. I listen to them, I get lots of privaledges, more than I deserve really. Never lie...omit.