This is trivially true. Eating a twinkie causes an emotional response.
Yes, it’s trivially true. That’s my point. And what people here don’t seem to get.
Emotion leads to sex, sex leads to emotion. There is no such thing as sex without consequence of emotion.
My “emotional response” to NSA sex is “Yay, sex!!!”
I suspect that’s not the emotional response you’re referring to.
Trivially true means true but unimportant. As I meant to suggest with the twinkie example, the mere fact that an action provokes an emotional response does not make that action deeply significant.
Hey CalD, who do you think you are to expect anybody to justify themselves and their relationships to you? Where do you get off questioning anybody’s reasons for their own lifestyles. You are the only one seeing a contradiction.
It does in the case of sex. Twinkies are great and everything, but they don’t lead to erection, vaginal lubrication, orgasm, babies, and the emotion that ostensibly ties it all together- Love. The fact that sex is impossible without emotional (limbic) response is highly significant, not at all trivial. The entire basis of sex is emotional in a very real and physical sense.
You misunderstand. Just about everything requires limbic response. Hence the fact that sex does as well is insignificant.
One might think that the convulsions she experienced were plenty theraputic !!!
Oh, I believe it. Experienced it. Been there done that - sex where no penis or penis like object was involved. But not being a gay man or having the types of conversations with the gay men I have known that I have with my girlfriends, had no idea if the psychology was similar - since it seems to be common - not universal - but common - among women I know.
But I would say that in evolutionary terms, perhaps the only reason for the existence of major limbic organs and hence emotion is entirely dependant on the most important survival strategy… Reproduction. That the limbic system sprung up around fight and flight and reproductive responses is undeniable. The Chicken or the egg.
I’m sorry, but in order to make Mr. Superpenis take flight, my entire limbic love faculties are focused on a real live emotional person (I can’t see them any other way.) It’s the heighth of and the most intense use of and excercise of my limbic regions … It’s almost like emotions were made for sex.
So?
Obviously you’ve never had a really good Twinkie.
I’m not really sure what you think any of this proves, except that you’re apparently That Guy who wants to friggin’ cuddle.
Brilliant.
I have to admit, sex seems to have the effect of strengthening my tool, but perhaps that’s just my imagination.
So that’s the way it works for you. I’m not trying to attack that. But you have to accept that for a lot of people, it’s not like that. Personally, I don’t need much more than boobs and a pretty face to get the engine running. That doesn’t mean it can’t mean more to me, only that it doesn’t have to. Is it a defect or “disconnect” if someone can have sex and enjoy it without feeling deep emotional stirrings?
So, in the case of the OP, I think the man and the woman are both objectifying one another sexually. It is sad to see love impotent.
Impotence would definitely put a kink in anyone’s NSA sex plans.
love is impotent. The sex is quite potent. That is why the bond fails.
What bond? What’s failing?
Just because you don’t like the idea of casual sex doesn’t mean it objectively IS a bad idea. Although I have no idea why I think I might get this idea through to you when no one else has been able to.