Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

[Cheeetar]

A triple entendre is an alliance between three major world powers to make dirty jokes about two other allied major world powers on a global scale. I don't even know what a quadruple entendre would entail.

It's sad that no one will get this joke.

I get it.


It's about WWII, right?

[Vahan]

I get it.

It's about WWII, right?

[Cheeetar]

Oh wait, that's WWI.

[bjlong]

I'm sorry, but no, the Victorian Era was the golden age of prudishness. Among other things, the word toilet was changed to describe the object, prostitutes were considered "tainted" and unredeemable, and in some societies, the word leg was forbidden. While people still did depraved things in private, public conversation was wrung through a bundle of prudishness.

On top of that, we can see that public media has gotten less restricted and prudish in the past 50 or so years. Look at the Hays Code and how we're dealing with pornography in recent years. Basically, I can't see an argument for increasing prudishness in public media.

[smigenboger]

Damn, there's a lot of virgins here. No surprise, I guess.

I find if it's available, it's not really a big deal, and when it's not available, it's suddenly a huge issue. Kind of like being able to drive. It's alright until suddenly your car is gone, then your whole schedule is messed up.

[Ephemeriis]

I'm sorry, but no, the Victorian Era was the golden age of prudishness. Among other things, the word toilet was changed to describe the object, prostitutes were considered "tainted" and unredeemable, and in some societies, the word leg was forbidden. While people still did depraved things in private, public conversation was wrung through a bundle of prudishness.

As I said, they were absolutely obsessed with it.  Anything even remotely sexual in nature was strictly taboo.

But I think you'll find that when things are taboo they simply become more appealing, not less.  Prostitution, despite the stigma attached to it, flourished.  As did extra-marital affairs and everything else.  It was simply hidden behind a veneer of good behavior.

On top of that, we can see that public media has gotten less restricted and prudish in the past 50 or so years. Look at the Hays Code and how we're dealing with pornography in recent years. Basically, I can't see an argument for increasing prudishness in public media.

I stated that society had become more prudish, and that the media had become more sex-obsessed.

Certainly, we see more sex on television and whatnot...  But I think you'll see that it is seldom treated in a positive manner.  We hear about children being molested, and the debate over abortion, and various public figures behaving badly, sting operations for Internet predators...

In some regards, I will agree that we are loosening up a bit.  Being homosexual, for example, isn't generally considered a crime anymore.

In other regards, however, we're becoming very prudish.  There's been a great resurgence in "promise rings" and abstinence-only sexual education.  Young folks are actually worse-educated about sex than in previous generations.

[Footkerchief]

I'm sorry, but no, the Victorian Era was the golden age of prudishness. Among other things, the word toilet was changed to describe the object, prostitutes were considered "tainted" and unredeemable, and in some societies, the word leg was forbidden. While people still did depraved things in private, public conversation was wrung through a bundle of prudishness.

The question you have to ask about the Victorians is: whose public conversation?  When people think about Victorian prudery, they're generally thinking about the upper class, because 1) they were the ones who cared the most about prudishness and 2) they produced the vast majority of literature.  I'm not sure to what extent that trickled down to the lower classes.

[Blacken]

2. Sex is addictive. Most virgins lose it to non-virgins who are just feeling the burn.

Preposterous. Absolutely bullshit preposterousness*. Stop reading Chick tracts, they rot your brain.


There's a lot of self-denial in this here thread. "Save for someone you love" sounds nice, if that's your bag, but it has numerous practical problems. If you haven't gotten laid, you don't know what you like. More alarmingly, you don't know what other people like. If you don't know either of those, you're going to be piss-poor in the sack. "Oh, that doesn't matter, we're in LOOOOOOOOVE" is not how it works--humans are generally pretty sexual beings and bad sex is a very common cause of relationship failure (or at least a strong helper; it can be a force multiplier upon other problems in the relationship).

With the exception of the abnormal and the broken: people fuck. Denying it does not make it any less of a factor, and just makes you less likely to end up sexually compatible with that person you think you love.


_{* - That word looks wrong. I insist it should be "preposterity".}

[Koji]

There has never been a time when people of any age were more or less promiscuous than they are now. The only thing that has ever changed is the manner in which this is viewed in public discourse, and at all times there have been two camps--one that says things are fine and another that is convinced it's gotten out of control.

Sex is a biological function necessary for the continued existence of (nearly) all life on earth. Saying there is a rising trend in sexual activity is like saying people are pooping more these days than they used to.

And no, young people aren't having more sex than they ever have, either. Once puberty starts, people will begin to feel urges and will tend to want to satisfy them to the best of their ability. No amount of education, brainwashing, religion, or authoritarianism has ever been able to curtail this in any fashion at any point in history. The best we can do is educate our children early on about STIs, birth control methods, relationships and abuse, and sexual assault, because with or without our help, these are things they are going to encounter and must be equipped to deal with.

Furthermore, plenty of children and teens don't feel that sex is as important as some of their peers do. Some will chose to pursue sex successfully, others will try and fail, some will abstain. These are all three normal and harmless behaviors so long as everyone involved knows the risks and how to mitigate them.

To the OP (and any other teens): Life is not as complicated or difficult as it seems, and as you get older you will find that nobody but you really has any business caring about what you do. Relax and take it easy--if you don't want sex, that's fine, you don't need it and you're not missing anything life-changing. If you do, stop by a Planned Parenthood and grab some free condoms and maybe a pamphlet or two.

If you don't have a Planned Parenthood where you live, look up another family planning clinic in your area, but hop online and read up on them before you visit. There are establishments known as CPCs that aren't real clinics and will basically try to scare you out of using condoms and/or birth control by literally lying to you. Check it out: http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/sfr/fake-abortion-clinics.html.

My girlfriend actually went into one of those by herself on accident and they basically screamed at her for half an hour because she wanted to go on the pill 

2. Sex is addictive. Most virgins lose it to non-virgins who are just feeling the burn.

As someone who has had sex (have you?), no it is not. It's fun and enjoyable, but so are Football and Atreet Fighter.

"Sex addicts" are not people who had so much sex they got hooked, they are people who have emotional problems and make poor decisions in their sex lives. Because of the associated hormones and the (mis)perception that someone who has sex with you must care about you, these people use sex to try and compensate for low self-esteem. They are typically victims of sexual abuse.

4. Teens have a much more open idea about sex nowdays. It's fun, not for love. That's just how the majority of modern people represent it.

No they don't:http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

66% of teens polled reported being abstinent in 2003. Most teens don't have sex, or do it infrequently. When I was in school, it was generally a very vocal minority of people who I knew that had done it.

The media is also no more sex-obsessed than it's ever been. If you think back to when you were a kid, you never saw sex on TV. Why? Your parents changed the channel.

[Vahan]

Damn, there's a lot of virgins here. No surprise, I guess.

People don't realise that getting a woman is as simple as getting out of the house.

[Itnetlolor]

Religion is usually a good cause for this, but at the same time, once you're finally in a relationship or something, it's like buying a used car. New ones are too complicated and expensive to obtain; and what are the odds they weren't test driven first as well by a dealer?

At least, according to many observations people have stated (also when I asked regarding relationships and such, and how long it took until certain people finally got married), it seems nobody will commit with something they haven't "test driven" first. Basically, they're nice, they're funny, they're smart, and they have more than enough money to support a family; but they suck in bed or are a complete virgin, Dealbreaker.

Considering this is how many people really think for most of their life turns me off from the whole prospect of either holding a relationship (mostly fear of being used as well; another reason I tend to scheme), or even giving someone the privilege of sleeping with me. I think having companionship for my whole life was my primary motivation of having a relationship, not sex. I maybe had the natural puberty interest-hit, but that faded rather quickly considering I was also a total failure with the ladies (which I found surprising, considering all the qualities I've been told/bragged about). I was pre-occupied with more important things anyway; plus, I wouldn't say the people that lived around locally were exactly the best of friends/decent people either. Sure, some of them were appealing, but their personalities sure were crap. That turned me away more than anything; more than my lifetime of being rejected. Treat good people as expendable, and you're worth just as much yourself.

Nowadays, I decide to go the celibate route seeing as my hopes are towards a possible Apocalypse; if it doesn't happen and we have a massive population boom, my 10-year high school reunion will never live it down from me (Meaning, I'm going to have so much fun burning everyone). I'm just going to constantly mock them for their cowardice. And even so, if women would all of a sudden find me appealing before 2012... yeah, I'm not buying that. Sure, I'd be denying myself many an opportunity, but I'd rather enjoy my solitude and accept my end in peace, than deal with being a coward and sleep with the first woman to have a change of heart before the end. BTW, I think it would be fun to screw over those who have screwed me over by not screwing them.

Am I a mean person, or would some of my bitterness be somewhat justified?

Damn, there's a lot of virgins here. No surprise, I guess.

People don't realise that getting a woman is as simple as getting out of the house.

Done it, doesn't work. I know from years of experience. Maybe I should move out of town.

At least an Atlanta trip I had recently provides evidence that location may be an issue. At least I constantly learn. And over there I seemed to have much better luck, though my total lack of success made me not recognize/realize success.

I guess I can vouch myself as part of the list, but more by choice. I gave up on humanity years ago. Not worth more years of unnecessary stress (and I'm not getting any younger either; I'm getting close to redline). Plus, it took me a good year or 2 to obtain solitude and inner peace. Last thing I want to do is lose that. In a way, I prefer to die alone.

EDIT:
I guess some contribution could also be that I've been sheltered a good portion of my life. But even so, I still was "the nice guy" (and trying to remove the stigma of that; but recently I learned/realized why women fear them.), I was a gentleman, I tried to understand them, help them, and try to have women join in the bizarre activities I do; or make them interested in my art. Oh, how it all never worked. Being an oddball probably never helped either.

[Duke 2.0]

As someone who has had sex (have you?), no it is not. It's fun and enjoyable, but so are Football and Atreet Fighter.

"Sex addicts" are not people who had so much sex they got hooked, they are people who have emotional problems and make poor decisions in their sex lives. Because of the associated hormones and the (mis)perception that someone who has sex with you must care about you, these people use sex to try and compensate for low self-esteem. They are typically victims of sexual abuse.

There is an interesting comparison here between sex addicts and cutters. A person who is having difficulty with life and uses the chemical releases of biological functions to grant the illusion of happiness. I say illusion here because they are not dealing with their problems so much as using biological functions to make them feel better, or ignore the pain.

 Although I do remember what this one lady who worked with pregnant teens and HIV infected teens said about sex. Something along the lines of how the orgasm isn't the point of them having sex. It does feel good and makes the action pleasurable, but it isn't why they are hooked. Something about being with another human being. Of not being alone.

[smigenboger]

True dat

[Koji]

There is an interesting comparison here between sex addicts and cutters. A person who is having difficulty with life and uses the chemical releases of biological functions to grant the illusion of happiness. I say illusion here because they are not dealing with their problems so much as using biological functions to make them feel better, or ignore the pain.

Dr. Drew on Loveline has mentioned a correlation between the two, in that many people who exhibit one trait exhibit both, and generally (but not always) have a history of abuse. I've only known a few people who fit the definition of a sex addict, but they were all cutters.

Although I do remember what this one lady who worked with pregnant teens and HIV infected teens said about sex. Something along the lines of how the orgasm isn't the point of them having sex. It does feel good and makes the action pleasurable, but it isn't why they are hooked. Something about being with another human being. Of not being alone.

Exactly. An orgasm is something you can make happen by yourself. It isn't the point of sex. In fact, anyone I've ever known who has fit the definition of a sex addict has actually been unable to reach orgasm.