devilsknew, you sound like a food snob shaking his head and observing how sad it is that some people prefer the crude, flat tastes of fish ‘n’ chips to the sublime experience of truffles.
It means that I am the man who will love you unconditionally and take care of your babies.
Well that swell of you, but the thing is, I love me unconditionally and I’ve already raised my baby. There’s cab fare on the dresser if you need it, dear.
Seriously though… good for you. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to only have sex with people you love. But it’s silly for you to be so insistent about telling other people what we feel or don’t feel.
Pardon me if I’ve missed it, but this seems like a good place to drop this quote by Woody Allen: "Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it’s one of the best.”
Some people don’t want what you got. Every man must face that eventually. Try not to take it personally.
I haven’t mentioned it yet, but in this and an earlier post you seem to be invoking a very common fallacy, which one might call the “evolutionary mind”: the idea that adaptive functions either determine the true purposes of things, or exist as unconscious desires in the minds of individuals.
For example, I find smooth skin very attractive, as do most people. This is an instinct whose adaptive function is to make people choose mates with fewer parasites, thus giving their offspring better odds of survival. But that’s not why I find smooth skin attractive. I find it attractive simply because my brain is wired that way, and my brain is wired that way because my ancestors’ brains were. The reproductive advantage those ancestors enjoyed was a consequence of this instinct, not a cause. Nor does it represent a purpose, as evolution is an inherently purposeless process.
Popped in a bit late on this thread, but I figured I’d throw in my two cents as a woman who’s participated in NSA sex.
Everyone’s said this before, but it bears repeating: in the society that we’re in, there’s an often unspoken agreement between committed partners that they will not be having sex with other people.
I wouldn’t say that sex isn’t sacred when you’re single, but your definition of sacred and mine are probably pretty different when it comes to sex. For me, it’s a wonderful, beautiful, and enjoyable experience that does not require a relationship as its basis, but generally works out better for me over time with one partner. I have had beautiful, mind-blowing, “sacred experience” sex outside of the confines of a relationship, and bad, sacrosanct, uninteresting sex inside the confines of one; both were valuable experiences for me to learn more about myself as a sexual being. If I were to become single again, I have no doubt that I would end up in at least a few more NSA encounters, as I do not have a cultural attachment to the idea that sex is best within the confines of a relationship. Marriage and other formal commitments of love are not sacred acts for me, but are social bonds that we acknowledge in order to make more sense of the world around us; one can live a happy life with sex without being part of a relationship and still be mentally, emotionally, and physically healthy as long as one takes the right precautions and does not expect the same of NSA sex as one does SA sex.
Although this wasn’t directed at me, I’ll take a stab at it. I was one of those women enjoying and participating almost exclusively in NSA sex at the age of 18. Sex was not a tool of monogamy for me, and I had no guilt or ill feelings about what I was doing; I was not ashamed of my behavior, nor did I feel the need to brag about it. It was just a method for satisfying my libido, and I did take the necessary safety precautions (condoms, birth control, etc.) beforehand. The first couple of NSA encounters I had, I did not communicate my lack of interest in a relationship beyond the encounter, and I unintentionally hurt the feelings of a few guys. I learned from it, and then became more communicative in my desire to “get off and move on” rather than give the illusion that there was something more for me than the gratification of desire. The most important part about an NSA encounter is the same as a SA encounter: clear communication of one’s intentions must be there in order for both parties to come out of the encounter, satisfied with the results. It does not make a person a “slut” to be in agreements of this sort, especially if they take the care necessary to ensure that their partners are not only agreeing to the same conditions, but are interested in the same outcome; it does not make me weak to acknowledge that I am a sexual being with needs and desires and to act upon them in an honest manner. Personally, I believe that, by having sidestepped what appears to be a common cultural issue within my peers has empowered me to be able to participate in healthier relationships sooner because of not having another stumbling block in the way of intimacy with my partner.
Those are some famous last words. You might want to get a dog.
I don’t mind the idea of casual sex, I never said that I was against casual sex. I’m against people objectifying one another and fooling themselves into the idea that somehow sex is an emotionless bodily function on par with eating a twinkie or taking a shit. It is much more significant than that and involves another person with emotions who is always on an unequal footing with you…always. Sex is an inherently unequal emotional and power dynamic, somebody is always giving or taking less or more. Sex can cause problems for people, some more than others. If it is debased and taken much to lightly then people often have emotional and relationship problems, are unfulfilled, or unhappy, and wonder why. I’m just telling you why.
Devilsknew, again, what makes you think that you have some special wisdom that the rest of us don’t? It seems more than a little arrogant to me to set yourself up as the pinnacle of sexual understanding as though everyone else in the world should bow to your superior knowledge. Do you really not understand that your opinions are just that, and not facts that apply universally to all people?
Sex is always between people on an unequal footing? Gosh, I’m glad I don’t live in your world.
You people are taking my statement much too literally. In evolutionary terms the guy who wants to cuddle and form an emotional bond with a woman is the guy who will ensure her and her children’s survival. Precisely because of those limbic responses. Which I think is quite a purposeful cause of evolution… if survival of the species isn’t the purpose of evolution then I don’t know what is.
Well duh! One person has both feet on the floor while the other has one foot on the floor and one on the chair. How else is the camera supposed to get in?
Maybe you should do some reading on evolutionary biology and figure out why reality is way less simplistic.
justrob, alternately, maybe it has to do with an amputee fetish.
Wouldn’t things be simple if everybody thought the way you did?
They don’t. And your clinical categorization and arbitrary judgement of others demonstrates just how much you don’t understand things that don’t fit into your world view.
That’s not meant as a slam, it’s just a recognition that there are other people, with other goals, other priorities, other assumptions. Sometimes it’s helpful to keep that in mind.
That seems to be the accepted wisdom, but I’ve always wondered why no one ever seems to consider that from an evolutionary standpoint, wouldn’t it make more sense for a woman to sleep with LOTS of men? Let the healthiest swimmers prevail?
That would have the effect of selecting for sperm motility, which may or may not have anything to do with the survival of the offspring.
Nothing is. Purpose requires some sort of mind. Evolution is just a process that happens.
What do you mean when you say sex is significant? I understand this to mean that it has a deep and lasting emotional impact on the participants. Obviously I recognize that it can and often does, but your general point seems to be that it always has this impact on anyone who engages in it.
If that’s what you’re saying, then what I’m saying is how do you know?
There’s a theory which holds that the odd shape of the human penis become an evolutionary advantage because it would scoop competitors’ semen out of the vagina (by the little “fireman’s helmet” at the base of the glans) before depositing its own. Some scientists use this as one bit of evidence that we’re “naturally”* not monogamous.
*And, just once more, this doesn’t mean that I think monogamy is bad or shouldn’t be pursued where the participants prefer it that way. Lots of “natural” behaviors aren’t good for us as civilized people, and the “natural” way is certainly not the only way. Violins aren’t natural, but I’m sure glad we’ve got them!
DOH! :smack:
I can’t beleive I left a whole market segment out like that. Thanks for the heads up. 
Sperm competition is a critical factor in human evolution. A lot of the biological facts of human evolution relies on the assumption that both men and women will be unfaithful. Indeed, there are some indications that the female orgasm plays a role in giving advantages to one man’s sperm over other men’s sperm – all competing within the female reproductive system.
Very interesting. My question is, does the woman increase the chances that her genes will be passed on by taking actions that foster more intense sperm competition among her mates? I don’t quite see how that would work.