U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-16-2013, 09:15 AM
 
12,164 posts, read 9,887,400 times
Reputation: 15813

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
Yep! I mean personally I get BORED in relationships very quickly. It doesn't matter how much I am into the person in the start, within 3-4 months I tire of them. It's just how I am built.
Different motivations and desires work for different people. I have met true love. It is wonderful, and I would not give it up for the world. But nor would I give up my freaky past. Oh the fond memories!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2013, 09:17 AM
 
12,164 posts, read 9,887,400 times
Reputation: 15813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
Agreed. ^^^^

I want my daughter to have great sex too, but I also want her to know that it's better when you're in love and when an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't be hugely traumatic. Also, other people may be able to have sex in an emotional vacuum, but I was never able to.
Why is it better when you are in love? And would you foist your inability on your daughter simply because she is female? I don't think that is what you are saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 09:23 AM
 
11,636 posts, read 20,445,628 times
Reputation: 12165
Quote:
Originally Posted by strawflower View Post
It's no less "healthy" to have few sex partners than it is to have dozens.
We are in total agreement. People should be free to choose a sex life that suits them. People includes all people, not just males.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 09:24 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,834,158 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew View Post
Why is it better when you are in love? And would you foist your inability on your daughter simply because she is female? I don't think that is what you are saying.
I'm not sure what "inability" you're referring to. It was always better for me when I was in love, or at least in some sort of relationship that had the possibility of moving forward. If that equates to an "inability" to enjoy a ONS, I guess I was unable. Like I said above, I'll tell her that was my experience and then she can decide for herself what she wants to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 09:27 AM
 
12,164 posts, read 9,887,400 times
Reputation: 15813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
I'm not sure what "inability" you're referring to.
Quoting you

"Also, other people may be able to have sex in an emotional vacuum, but I was never able to. "

Quote:
It was always better for me when I was in love, or at least in some sort of relationship that had the possibility of moving forward. If that equates to an "inability" to enjoy a ONS, I guess I was unable. Like I said above, I'll tell her that was my experience and then she can decide for herself what she wants to do.
Amen to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:10 AM
 
5,385 posts, read 6,528,678 times
Reputation: 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew View Post
Not necessarily. It can be for their mutual pleasure. Do you feel you are just using someone's body when you play mutually pleasurable racquetball with them?
An interesting and intriguing analogy; thank you again for the fascinating discussion...

I don't really have a perfect answer to offer, other than to say it perhaps seem to me to be like comparing apples and oranges, to a certain degree. I know we had discussed this earlier before, and I fully respect your opinion on the matter, but I freely admit that I can't fully understand how people, whether young or old, can divorce feelings of love and affection, from physical relations. At the same time, I realize that other people may have differing beliefs or practices on that subject, and that is fine -- different strokes for different folks...

Also, some more food for thought: I sometimes wonder what young people around 18+, themselves, generally think of and perceive about what *they* want, in terms of the context in which they most-ideally see themselves wanting physical relations occurring under. For example, all other things being equal, and if there were no contraints or barriers preventing them, would they themselves prefer engaging in casual, no-strings, non-permanent physical relations? What numeric sample of young people would prefer something longer-term, more permanent-leaning, and more committed and loving?

It may be my own personal bias speaking here admittedly, but I would be inclined to believe, all other things being equal and without any other restraints in place, that without having already *previously* been involved in a casual / non-permanent relationship, that most young people would tend to yearn for a longer-term or permanent-themed relationship, as their automatic and natural default. Further, I don't believe that the default desire changes, until after young people concretely realize that with the existing societal pressures/constraints, it is going to be extremely difficult and challenging to make a relationship truly permanent for practical financial purposes and considerations in today's society, while they are say 18-21 years old. So casual relations, serial monogamy, etc. naturally become a "new normal", if only because what alternative do they really have? Love, while certainly beautiful and special and 100% amazing, is also not in itself going to put food on the table and pay the bills...but I don't believe that we are automatically hardwired as human beings, to want casual relations as the automatic default relationship style. In fact, I believe that the initial, default desire among young people is long-term love, and intended for sooner rather than later. This is why I always strongly advocate for lowering the average age in which 18+ young people can realistically enter into permament leaning relationships (from say for example 28-30+ to 18-21+), and for practical, workable purposes, at younger rather than later ages.

Young people want to be loved, treasured, and adored by someone who loves them romantically, too -- so why not give it to them, sooner than later? Wouldn't that be inherently kinder and more benevolent to young people as a whole, if they knew they had a realistic and sustainable path to making a younger, long-term relationship actually last, flourish, thrive, and endure, for the long haul? Younger people in the more distant generations past had this as a viable option, so why not renew and restore it in the present, as another option that people can choose from, in addition to the status quo?

Last edited by Phoenix2017; 08-16-2013 at 11:47 AM.. Reason: Fixed typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:34 AM
 
5,385 posts, read 6,528,678 times
Reputation: 4551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
Who said it had anything to do with emotion? Sex isn't always done with emotions in play. Sometimes you just want to get naked with someone else, with no ties. Maybe at that point in your life you don't have the time for anything serious, so you aren't looking for anything more than a casual thing. And humans are not by nature or never have been truly monogamous. We have always practiced a serial form of it.
Are we born that way though; i.e., wanting "no-strings" relations, from time to time? Or is that something that is culturally-acquired, over time? In other words, left to their own devices and without any other issues impeding being able to successfully enter into a long-term, committed and devoted realtionship, do you think most people would want that, or would instead decline it?

Quote:
Who says people don't form serious relationships when they are young? You can form something serious, and not feel ready for marriage at the same time. It has nothing to do with what society is teaching people. And yes college is more important than finding true love when you are young. It's better for you to find a career you love, and then you have the time to find emotional love. In the past people *women especially* had less options in life, so marrying young was normal. But now women make up nearly half of the work force, and more then 60 percent of college students. Our choices are no longer limited to staying home, doing domestic work, and raising the kids. We have more options on the table, and more ability to take our time finding the right person to date. Why would we desire to get tied down at 18, and we can spend time getting to know, and date other people, to find the right one to marry. And you also have to understand that far less people went to college 30 years ago than they do today. As more people go the average age of marriage becomes higher. Eventually it will peak off like it has in europe, and be in the early 30's.
Please see my previous post directly preceding this one, for additional thoughts on your selected portions above...yes I do understand that these are the social norms and protocols today that we have now, in the present. The question is though, have these new social norms of "college/career first before love" actually helped or hurt young people? Please understand, I am in no way advocating for or saying that young women should not have viable career options, and I also do not agree that young women not being able to have good career options is a good thing. Not at all. I'm just saying, why not pursue college *and* career *and* long-term love together, all at the same time? Why does it have to be mutually-exclusive, and sequential in that order...why not parallel-track everything, together all simultaneously?

Quote:
You can't used anything beyond that because the data is skewed. Since divorces were very difficult to get in the past, people stayed together even if they were completely miserable.
You are correct, but since more young people also married younger at that point in time also, isn't it also possible that there were statistically also more happy, fulfilled marriages back then as well? Because much fewer young people get married today vs. on the scale they used to, isn't the modern data skewed negatively against the past number of happy marriages, in addition to unhappy marriages?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:48 AM
 
19,078 posts, read 21,909,768 times
Reputation: 13432
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew View Post
What do you mean by no standards mantra? I don't think anyone is suggesting no standards. My standards are
- safe
- healthy, emotionally and physically
- kind

And those standards don't preclude ONS. Lots of people hinge their judgment on the THING, not the actual objective outcome of the thing. When you say we have standards for all kinds of things, you will find that I object to those too when they are arbitrary and not based on the objective outcome of the thing, be it discipline, academics, whatever.
A ONS is about no standards because you don't know who you are sleeping with to have standards in the first place. What I mean by standards for all kinds of things- like in our music taste, the food we eat (organic vs dumpster diving/fast food, etc), alcohol (top shelf vs house), household cleaners (natural vs chemical), schools we attend (public vs private), whatever. There are a million things. What's arbitrary imo is sleeping with just anybody and having to be intoxicated to do it. Maybe that's cool for some folk, but it's not for me and it's not something I would want for my kid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:54 AM
 
19,078 posts, read 21,909,768 times
Reputation: 13432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
I actually know some people that regret not having more partners before they settled down though.
People can have multiple partners and not have ONS's. I don't know why folk here assume ONS's are the only way to have multiple partners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:56 AM
 
12,164 posts, read 9,887,400 times
Reputation: 15813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
A ONS is about no standards because you don't know who you are sleeping with to have standards in the first place.
Why would an ONS assume that you don't know the person? Choosing not to have sex with someone you don't know well enough to know that they aren't going to bad mouth you or have contracted STDs are whatever is just smart. Basing a "standard" on an objective reason as I mentioned above. Choosing not to have sex with someone only one time is arbitrary.

Quote:
What I mean by standards for all kinds of things- like in our music taste, the food we eat (organic vs dumpster diving/fast food, etc), alcohol (top shelf vs house), household cleaners (natural vs chemical), schools we attend (public vs private), whatever. There are a million things. What's arbitrary imo is sleeping with just anybody and having to be intoxicated to do it. Maybe that's cool for some folk, but it's not for me and it's not something I would want for my kid.
Most of those things have a reason, a root objective to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top