Sex is overrated

[Chefodeath]

You know, it's not that I disagree with your points as much as I just couldn't care less. It's a simple act no more phenomenal than that of eating.

And that's the kind of attitude that we should do away with as a society. Have a little reverence. 50% of marriages today end in divorce, usually in the first couple of years. So much misery. Why? Because people think we need sex to live. The more you have sex, the less you bond with your partner. If people would just wait until they meet someone they want to spend their life with, and they know each other well enough to know they're the right person, they'll be happy forever.

F*** secularists. I'm a 19-year-old virgin and I'm damn proud.

It takes a supreme kind of arrogance to think you can prescribe a series of general rules to the human condition, a particularly religious attitude. Are you really implying that in the entire canon of human history that there has never been one break up or divorce that wasn't the result of two people not getting to know each other well enough? Tell me, what are the criteria that need to be met in order to "know someone well enough"? Is it that they know each other so well that they never decide to seperate, because in that case you've presented a worthless tautology.

Even ignoring that your thesis doesn't appear to be supported by fact, I'm finding it difficult to find the internal consistency in your stance. You simultaneously claim that 1) sex should be revered and 2) sex is something which you don't need to live and in fact distances you from your partner. Tell me, if sex is just this grim, destructive act, why should it be revered?

You say fuck secularists? I say fuck idiots.

 

[feeback06]

I think sex as a pure action of the physical is overrated, but as a way for knowing someone better and being intimate, underrated.

That is actually a good point that I hadn't thought of initially. I started to like one girl I know a lot less after I had sex with her due to the kinky things she wanted to do, which frankly disturbed me. She told me she had always hidden that side of herself from others, which led me to believe that the person I enjoyed being around; was in fact a lie.

Did you embrace that side of her or let it slide? Personally I like to try new things, but I can understand that you would not like to try some. Depends on how kinky were talking about, I guess. But if you really liked her and embraced that side, in increments at least, you might have had fun and she would have been more open.
Or she would have wanted to do things... completely out of your liking and you would have nightmares. So I guess it's a double edged blade

Well I'm open to try new things as well, and I tried some (not all O_O) of the things she liked but in the end all that happened was her getting hers and me getting nothing out of it.

 

[axlryder]

You know, it's not that I disagree with your points as much as I just couldn't care less. It's a simple act no more phenomenal than that of eating.

And that's the kind of attitude that we should do away with as a society. Have a little reverence. 50% of marriages today end in divorce, usually in the first couple of years. So much misery. Why? Because people think we need sex to live. The more you have sex, the less you bond with your partner. If people would just wait until they meet someone they want to spend their life with, and they know each other well enough to know they're the right person, they'll be happy forever.

F*** secularists. I'm a 19-year-old virgin and I'm damn proud.

It takes a supreme kind of arrogance to think you can prescribe a series of general rules to the human condition, a particularly religious attitude. Are you really implying that in the entire canon of human history that there has never been one break up or divorce that wasn't the result of two people not getting to know each other well enough? Tell me, what are the criteria that need to be met in order to "know someone well enough"? Is it that they know each other so well that they never decide to seperate, because in that case you've presented a worthless tautology.

Even ignoring that your thesis doesn't appear to be supported by fact, I'm finding it difficult to find the internal consistency in your stance. You simultaneously claim that 1) sex should be revered and 2) sex is something which you don't need to live and in fact distances you from your partner. Tell me, if sex is just this grim, destructive act, why should it be revered?

You say fuck secularists? I say fuck idiots.

While I agree that attempting to micromanage the values of a population is neither practical or even ethical, I think you may have misinterpreted his statement (or in this case, I think he may have done a poor job in conveying his thoughts).

As to his position, I believe he was referring to people's perceived tendency (especially in more recent generations) to have multiple sexual partners preceding a long term or "permanent" relationship. Thus, when he said reverence, he was implying people should have a greater sense of refrain and consideration when choosing to engage in sex and with whom. The actual validity of that statement is debatable and certainly not necessarily universal applicable; however, I don't think he meant that sex between two people in a relationship drives couples apart. If that is what he meant, then yes, he is simply misinformed.

Also, when he says "people think we need sex to live" I believe it's in the context of "needing sex for immediate continued survival", i.e., some people feeling the need to instantly gratify their sexual urges via another person as opposed to refraining from perpetual indulgence.

In terms of "getting to know each other well enough", it's been shown that the period of infatuation that exists between two people in a long term relationship (different from the kind of infatuation one might have for a random cute girl) can last anywhere from 6 months to 3 years. So in that regard, at least it is true that the period of engagement/dating between two people should probably take that fact into consideration before tying the old knot. The exact connection between long term infatuation and sex I'll admit to not having any direct knowledge of, but I imagine that such connection does indeed exist.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Personally, I don't think sex is nearly important enough to justify such a long post! But whatever floats your boat, I guess. So I'll give you some of my thoughts.

the BIGGEST problem is actually the general avoidance or obfuscation of sexual concepts in regards to children.

It's nearly impossible to NOT be exposed to enough sexual content that it's likely to permanently effect your sexual perceptions in the future (especially as a kid).

I confess to being a little bit confused by the above two statements. Do you want there to be more or less sexual content in popular culture?

This also brings me to a small side point about general female sexual needs that's so greatly misunderstood by a lot of men and even woman that it's amazing to me.

You don't expand on this so it's hard to work out what you mean. In my experience, men and women can both be unsure about what the other wants in the bedroom. After all, we have different anatomy! This is why honest communication is important. (And why my gay friends can be so smug. Much less confusion there.)

Resulting in a view that sex is more of a consequence-free, purely visceral act of pleasure than an emotionally potent and intimate act between two people who (hopefully) love each other (+ the occasional baby making).

Sex can certainly be an important part of a loving, long-term relationship. But it can also just be a bit of fun between two adults who don't mind if they never see each other again. Both are completely fine and neither should be stigmatised.

Personally, I find sex in a committed relationship to be the best (more trust makes for more exciting sex), but I've never regretted a casual encounter, and they have a certain thrill that's difficult to replicate.

Sex sells, we all know this. The problem is that, whether we buy the actual product, the subconscious message is still there.

Sex isn't the only quality to be used in this way. There are plenty of adverts for men's razors that insinuate that - by using this brand of razor - you will be successful at your job, at sports, etc. Similarly, adverts in the UK for budget supermarkets often make use of the "supermum" image. Viewers are led to believe that - simply by shopping there - they will be a "good mum" to their kids. Advertising a product using unconnected "benefits" is not new and is not in any way unique to sex.

Society pressures you into having sex with all its bandwagon logic via peers and movies.

Maybe this is a difference between the USA and the UK, but I stopped noticing any sort of peer-pressure to have sex after I left school at 18 (at which age I was still a virgin). It feels like a needlessly obvious statement, but people do get more mature about sex once they leave their teens!

There are some people in the world (more than I think would admit) that aren't all that sexually oriented. Some are asexual, some are more emotionally sensitive in regards to sex, some are more sexually reserved, some have chosen to live a celibate lifestyle for one reason or another and some simply aren't really big sex people.

It's not easy, because sex is so expected and common-place that wanting to refrain for any period of time (especially if you're a 21 Y/O dude) makes you seem like either a "loser"/"virgin", freak or some extremist fundie. Not a great label.

Strange statement. I have no idea how often most of my friends have sex, or even if they've had sex at all! Funnily enough, we don't tend to give each other updates over the coffee pot at work.

"Had a nice weekend, Steve?"

"Yeah, not bad. Had some great sex on Sunday with Amy from accounts."

"Sounds awesome. What about you, Gary?"

"Oh, I don't like sex."

"Really?! What are you, a freak?"

OK, I jest, but you get the idea. Personally, I have never experienced the above behaviour, so I don't think being asexual is actually a problem. Whereas being homosexual can be a problem, as it can more easily become apparent. (For example, when you want to bring your partner to an office Christmas party.)

The final problem I have with sex is that so many people feel like they NEED it...Sometimes I feel like sex smothers other aspects of people's lives that deserve more attention or influences things that perhaps it should be influencing.

This can be said about anything. Careers, sports, drinking, playing chess... Any activity you let take over your life completely can be unhealthy. It's all about balance.

Again, I've never met a "sex-aholic" (unless university students count!) so I can't say that I believe there is an actual problem here. There's certainly far more of an issue with people's jobs taking over their lives (especially in the legal and financial sectors). In comparison to killing yourself through over-work and stress, going out on Saturday nights for some casual sex is pretty healthy.

Providing - of course - that you use protection.

 

[MetalMagpie]

The more you have sex, the less you bond with your partner.

I would love to see your evidence for that! Perhaps an academic study that shows a higher divorce rate amongst couples who have sex more often?

Personally, I've found that sex is a great bonding experience because (for it to go well) it requires both honesty and trust. But - for the same reasons - it can also expose a terminal lack of trust or honesty in a relationship.

And there's nothing wrong with casual encounters either. Just because you don't feel they're right for you, doesn't mean that they aren't right for anyone.

Sex means different things to different people. Some people like to have one-night-stands as part of their social life, and some people prefer to wait until marriage. Both are absolutely fine. No one should be made to feel bad for their sexual preferences, providing the golden rule applies: Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

 

[Right Hook]

snip

I agree with a lot of what you said here, some excellent points, I'm not in the right frame of mind to offer a great response right now but I still wanted to say nice post.

 

[kouriichi]

Id love to agree.
When i was younger i didnt enjoy sex to much. I didnt get it much, but when i did, it wasn't to great.

But then i found out my strange, strange, weird, strange fetish. I love seeing my wife have a good time. Sex has never been more enjoyable for me, because its never been more enjoyable for her.

I think, in the end, sex is much better when you find someone on the same wavelength as you. When you find someone you love, almost everything you do with them is 10x better.

While i do agree, sex IS overrated, it can still be alot of fun when fuzzy handcuffs, anime costumes, fake cat ears, and the soundtrack from Deadly Premonition are involved.
^Now thats love make'in music.^

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's an a priori biological/evolutionary drive. I'm not really sure how it could be called "overrated". That's like calling eating overrated, or pooping overrated, or sleeping overrated. Is it always a totally mind-blowing experience? Of course it's not. But I don't really see how it can be "overrated".

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

I must say that I don't see the big deal about sex. Or, more specifically. I don't see the big deal in going out of my way to acquire sexual partners on a regular basis, like "going out on the pull" tends to be. Though I wasn't always like that, during my three years at university I slept with several girls, all of whom I don't speak to anymore (not due to bad blood, but simply due to the fact we were never friends or even acquaintances to begin with). I do wish I hadn't slept with any of them as it's left me with literally nothing positive to show, no emotional growth, no spiritual growth. All it really left me with was a horrified feeling at my own nature.

 

[Phisi]

I agree with you on the education part, I don't know why anyone wouldn't but I disagree wen it comes to porn and sex in media. I don't think that gender portrayals in porn are a problem, someone could watch porn and decide that they should treat women as sex objects and they must work out and someone else can watch it, jerk off and go back to what they were doing. The porn hasn't changed but the viewer has. The porn is just content and it depends on how the viewer perceives it that changes how it affects them. Person A treated it as a factual representation of gender roles and person B treated it as a fantasy for people to watch and jerk off to. This is similar to video games causing violence, while it is possible that they do, if the consumer is educated about video games, they won't be affected by it. And I also hold this view to advertising and other media, if they want to show being feminine as having no body hair, being skinny, breasts and what not then let them because the advertising doesn't do anything but provide content for the consumer to base their ideas off. It is the ideas they acquire that need to be changed.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Holy wall of text batman!

I will leave reading this for later when I'm bored

 

[loa]

You know, speaking of sex sells, as a league of legends player I am kinda annoyed that every.single.female.champion has to be big boobed and sexy.
Except for poppy. And anivia I guess.

Just look at their latest one [http://riot-web-static.s3.amazonaws.com/images/news/January_2012/2012_01_14_sejuani_reveal/Sejuani_splash0.jpg].
It makes even less sense this time since this one is supposed to come from a very cold place yet still wears almost nothing.
Would that still be the case if it were some norse dude riding a pig? I don't think so.

The punchline? Everyone is just a-okay with this. Why's that?
I bet if it were men constantly put out wearing almost nothing, hundreds of kids would complain about the "gay in lol".

That may be a little off topic but still relevant?