Those abstinent people don’t know what they’re missing. Besides the fact that sex is fun, it does make me feel closer to my boyfriend. You can’t get any closer physically, and unless the person that you’re fucking treats you like a cheap whore, there is a major emotional connection as well. It’s made me cry slightly before, and it’s made him speechless a few times, haha. But sexual compatibility is an important part of a relationship - I didn’t know “good sex” until I was with my current boyfriend. I think it could end up being a horrible idea when you’re in a relationship, don’t have sex until you’re married, then find out one of you sucks in bed/ one person is really kinky or freaky and the other isn’t, etc. Sex isn’t everything but it is very important.
And I’ve seen research that suggests having sex a few times a week can raise immune functioning, so it’s good for ya beyond just cardio!! Haha.
If this is the guy whose picture appeared in the article, we’re talking more “untamed guinea pig”.
This is the mildly scary part. Some of the Righteous have this contain-within-the-pressure-cooker approach to human passions, to the point when the breakout occurs, you hope no one gets hurt.
On a parallel note, there was a column in my college alumni magazine recently by a student who was going on about the joys of abstaining from alcohol. Now, I am a very light drinker who was a virtual non-drinker in college. Still, when I read her piece in the magazine my thought was “My, aren’t we a sanctimonious little twit.”
Making a parade out of your virtuousness is a piss-off.
Do you seriously not see the distinction between the educational institution and one student club full of wackos?
Ah, OK, thanks for telling me. I’ll be sure to go tell my students that someone on the Internet proved my total uselessness beyond basic instinctual needs. They’ll be as surprised as I am, but since you’re an expert on my life, I’ll just have to tell them that they have to believe you.
So, this rant is based upon the fact that a group at Harvard promotes a type of sexual behavior that you don’t believe in as optimal and criticizes the behavior that you do espouse. You have a different model of sexual behavior that you believe to be optimal, and so you criticize their model because it doesn’t agree with yours.
Hypocrite, heal thyself.
The OP seems to be against the reasoning of this group not only for the basic idea that abstinence is the best way, but the the BS reasons they use to back up that their choice is the correct one.
While you are there be sure to teach them about how not taking everything seriously is a good thing…especially when dealing with people on the internet. Also remind them that things that hurt frequently contain some truth.
Feel free to teach them that when they go online there are some horrid people who speak crap and some crappy people who speak horrid.
I’m actually a fairly nice person who was talking out my arse, though the difference between the way male and female sexuality is expressed really pisses me off.
IOW she disagrees. I saw nothing BS about their reasoning (I didn’t read the NYT article, just what was presented in the OP). Who the fuck is the OP to say how people should behave sexually(by the same token, who the fuck are the people in that group to tell anyone)? If someone wants to fuck, let 'em fuck. If someone else wants to wait, let 'em wait. Neither choice is inherently any more “right” than the other, but you don’t get to criticize the choices that another person supports and push your own choices without being called a hypocrite, because you’re doing the exact same thing that you’re criticizing.
It’s one thing to promote safe sex, I’m 110% for more education about condoms and birth control and all that. But another view refutes their claims of the dangers of premarital sex:
True Love Revolution again:
Maybe this girl has encountered a bunch of pushy assholes and not a nice guy ever? I’ve had a few boyfriends and they’ve never been jerks about sex stuff. If I wanna have sex, then yeah we will, if I don’t, then we’re not gonna. Simple as that. I’ve never fucked someone I hardly knew either, and never felt pressured to. I’ve known some douchebag guys that are the stereotypical locker room guys - but they are a damn joke and they date equally stupid girls.
I’ve got a problem with this group acting like there is tons of empirical research showing that sex = bad. I don’t give a shit if you don’t have sex, but don’t promote crap research to back up a personal choice.
Well, then, come back after you finish reading the OP, where several elementary fallacies (e.g. the fallacy of the excluded middle, aka “false dichotomy”) are pointed out.
Actually, I think there is a difference. The person being pitted has a type of sexual behaviour that they believe applies or should apply to everyone, and that they follow themselves. The OP OTOH certainly has a type of sexual behaviour that they follow, but I don’t see them claiming all people should do as she does, only that to apply the woman’s standard to all people is silly. And both think the other is wrong. IOW, the OP isn’t claiming her model as optimal - as she points out in the second paragraph, if someone decides to be abstinent, that’s fine if it’s the right decision for them - only that the pitted woman’s views are not universal.
Add to that that the pitted woman is criticising other people’s behaviour; the OP is criticising that argument, not the behaviour, and I think there are significant enough differences.
That… was… beautiful. Eloquent, scathing, and oh so smart. I *totally *want to engage in respectful and yet premarital sex with you. Welcome to the 'Dope!
And yeah, the lady (young Miss Fredell) doth protest too much. She’s an outing waiting to happen.
