Pornography. Shameful Pleasure, or Perfectly Natural?

[Phoenix Wright]

Sure it is. It's also possible that whoever you sleep with might ALSO put way too much baggage on sex. Again, You. Don't. Know. Not unless you know them really well.

a few things here:

1. if he/she is having sex with you after, let's say, not a very long time, it's probable that that partner does not put much emphasis on the emotional aspect of sex.

2. it is your own fault if you have sex with someone who wants more than that. and it is that person's fault for not expressing their feelings clearly. if you forced yourself onto your partner, then that's obviously a different bag of worms all together.

3. sex comes up in conversation pretty quickly if you're flirting with someone. you'll know pretty fast, within the night of meeting that person.

if you aren't flirting with that person/showing interest, don't count on getting in any sort of romantic relationship with him/her. it's not impossible to be successful [romantically] if you've spent a lot of time with a person, but haven't tried to be romantic at all; however, it's a big stretch to find that sort of success given the position you've put yourself in.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

a few things here:

1. if he/she is having sex with you after, let's say, not a very long time, it's probable that that partner does not put much emphasis on the emotional aspect of sex.

Or they're one of those people who think they need to "put out" in order to keep their mate. But, yet again, you don't know. I mean, suppose I had a chance to receive the entire Dragon Quest series for free, at the price of some stranger having a 1/4096 chance of having some crippling illness afflict them. I still wouldn't take that chance, because doing that for something as meaningless as a ton of video games would obviously be unethical and stupid.

Besides, this still doesn't address the question of "how do you know they don't belong to someone else?". Even if you don't think emotional harm is a risk, you have to admit that there's always the possibility of you accidentally committing adultery.

2. it is your own fault if you have sex with someone who wants more than that.

I agree. That's why it's important to take the time to get to know them first, isn't it?

and it is that person's fault for not expressing their feelings clearly. if you forced yourself onto your partner, then that's obviously a different bag of worms all together.

That is unfair, in my opinion. Not everyone is like us, who can clearly express themselves in writing and in words. Some people, through no fault of their own, simply aren't very good at communicating. So why should they be punished because we wanted something as worthless as a few nights of sex? If you truly believe that sex doesn't have that much meaning attached to it, then I say "well why even bother to begin with, and take the risk of hurting someone who thinks it's more than that?".

3. sex comes up in conversation pretty quickly if you're flirting with someone. you'll know pretty fast, within the night of meeting that person. if you aren't flirting with that person/showing interest, don't count on getting in any sort of romantic relationship with him/her. it's not impossible to be successful [romantically] if you've spent a lot of time with a person, but haven't tried to be romantic at all; however, it's a big stretch to find that sort of success given the position you've put yourself in.

Whoa now, who said that I thought flirting was a bad thing? That human sexuality was a bad thing? That's one of the greatest joys of living! You SHOULD be really attracted to your partner! You SHOULD want to feel a constant pull to stroke their hair, face, stomach, etc. You SHOULD melt into a pool of jello whenever they dress really attractively...I mean jeez, it's not like I'm trying to say that we're pigs or something for wanting to have tons and tons of sex ...

But what I'm saying is that you should also have some kind of plan to actually be there for them, and have an actual investment in their health and well-being. Otherwise, I don't think you should even start the flirting at all.

Edited May 21, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

Or they're one of those people who think they need to "put out" in order to keep their mate. But, yet again, you don't know. I mean, suppose I had a chance to receive the entire Dragon Quest series for free, at the price of some stranger having a 1/4096 chance of having some crippling illness afflict them. I still wouldn't take that chance, because doing that for something as meaningless as a ton of video games would obviously be unethical and stupid.

Besides, this still doesn't address the question of "how do you know they don't belong to someone else?". Even if you don't think emotional harm is a risk, you have to admit that there's always the possibility of you accidentally committing adultery.

i will be using a male-female model for a relationship throughout the rest of my posts.

that is a foolish way to think, and is in no way the other partner's fault. if a girl is insecure enough to think that the only reason their boyfriend likes her is if she fucks him, then i don't think she belongs in that relationship. same for a dude.

it's not anyone's priority if a girl is already in a relationship. again, if flirting, the guy will find out. whether he wants to continue is up to him. i also find it to be in bad taste if she is already in a "relationship" though.

That is unfair, in my opinion.

oh - ho-ho, that's rich. so she's not to blame at all? come on, fella. relationships are not one-sided. i think it's unfair of you to think that the fault lies solely on the pursuer.

Not everyone is like us, who can clearly express themselves in writing and in words. Some people, through no fault of their own, simply aren't very good at communicating. So why should they be

punished because we wanted something as worthless as a few nights of sex? If you truly believe that sex doesn't have that much meaning attached to it, then I say "well why even bother to begin with, and take the risk of hurting someone who thinks it's more than that?".

you are being very unreasonable here. people can clearly state what they want. if she don't want it, she don't want it. if she do, she do. she'll tell me. it's not a difficult opinion to express.

one-night stand, bud. one-night. ;)

sex has as much meaning as the two partners (or more!) attach to it. this is my point. this is why some people fuck with no strings attached. this is why some people only have sex when married. people will attach their own worth to sex and pursue partners with similar ideals. and these views aren't static--for some girls, i find them to be "dateworthy," and others...not so much. it is variable from person-to-person.

Whoa now, who said that I thought flirting was a bad thing? That human sexuality was a bad thing? That's one of the greatest joys of living! You SHOULD be really attracted to your partner! You SHOULD want to feel a constant pull to stroke their hair, face, stomach, etc. You SHOULD melt into a pool of jello whenever they dress really attractively...I mean jeez, it's not like I'm trying to say that we're pigs or something for wanting to have tons and tons of sex ...

But what I'm saying is that you should also have some kind of plan to actually be there for them, and have an actual investment in their health and well-being. Otherwise, I don't think you should even start the flirting at all.

and what i'm saying is that not every potential partner wants or deserves a relationship with you.

[FionordeQuester]

i will be using a male-female model for a relationship throughout the rest of my posts.

As you wish. It does indeed make things easier.

that is a foolish way to think, and is in no way the other partner's fault. if a girl is insecure enough to think that the only reason their boyfriend likes her is if she fucks him, then i don't think she belongs in that relationship. same for a dude.

The world isn't that perfect, and I don't believe in blaming the other person.

it's not anyone's priority if a girl is already in a relationship. again, if flirting, the guy will find out.

There's no way you can possible know that. No way. Not unless you have some sort of spider sense as to who's lying/hiding something, and who isn't.

oh - ho-ho, that's rich. so she's not to blame at all? come on, fella. relationships are not one-sided. i think it's unfair of you to think that the fault lies solely on the pursuer.

I would say it's shared, personally. Which means the pursuer still has some fault.

you are being very unreasonable here. people can clearly state what they want. if she don't want it, she don't want it. if she do, she do. she'll tell me. it's not a difficult opinion to express.

You'd be surprised, actually. There have been women who were SO afraid of hurting men's feelings, that they've actually allowed themselves to be married to people they don't truly love! This is, of course, discounting the possibility that your partner might have some sort of mental disorder, like Borderline Personality Disorder or something.

The real problem with this argument, though, is that I feel like you're making this entirely based on assumptions. You SAY that there's no one who would have that much trouble expressing themselves, but how would you know that? Have you done studies of how well the average person expresses themselves? Are you a Psychology major?

If not, then unless you've dated like, 50,000 women, or some other ridiculous amount in your life time, your assumptions are only that. Assumptions.

it is variable from person-to-person.

Indeed it is. That's why you'd best take the time to get to know them first before having any carnal relationships with them.

and what i'm saying is that not every potential partner wants or deserves a relationship with you.

Of course not. But, again, You. Don't. Know! Which woman is which, I ask you? I certainly wouldn't know, and I don't see how you would either.

In fact, you don't even know if a partner is going to be someone who was initially fine with no strings attached, but then found herself falling in love with you! What do you do in that situation?! Tell her you fell in love with someone else I suppose, but it's going to be way easier on her if you never started anything to begin with!

i also find it to be in bad taste if she is already in a "relationship" though.

I find it to be way more than just "in bad taste" actually, but that's just me. So now that I've addressed those specific questions...

The problem that I have with the arguments that you and Dondon have are that, I feel like they only make total sense if you don't take too much time to worry about how the other person is feeling. I, myself, try to live my life every day in a way that prioritizes the other person rather than myself. So, for me, ANYTHING that could jeopardize the health of the other person, whether or not they're already messed up to begin with, is unacceptable to me, especially if it's for something so petty.

I mean, you say it yourself, sex isn't that important. So, I ask you, if it is so unimportant, then why even bother with it outside of a committed relationship? Why seek out casual partners if there is even the slightest, 1/4048 chance that I'm right? It's not as though you get much of anything outside of a bit of fun.

Edited May 21, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Rehab]

It's no bad thing to be considerate of other people, but eventually in the "there's no way you can know ___ about another person" train of thought, there comes a point where it loops around so far that the only real option you have is to trust what the other person tells you. Or, at least, to trust them to be the way they say they are, while being accepting if they reveal some nuance to their position (or even if they end up backpedalling a bit) later. It could be considered a bit presumptuous to assume that they don't mean they're fine enough with casual sex to enjoy it, on balance, when they say they are.

The ideal casual sex relationship is very much a "take-as-you-go" sort of thing, where all parties communicate what they're feeling about having casual sex as they go. The people involved are supposed to be free to discuss things if and when their feelings start becoming more complicated for them than simply "having sex with you is fun and I would like to continue having it."

Casual sex "not being for me/you/us" is always fine, but "because somebody might get hurt" is a reason that wants for a bit of refining, because somebody "might get hurt" at any stage of any kind of relationship, romantic/sexual or not. That's part of the nature of forming attachments (though not to say that's an entirely bad thing, of course). Depending on who's involved, somebody might get hurt (emotionally) if you start jogging together. Somebody might get hurt just from saying "yes, I would like to be friends with you," even with no romance attached to anybody's thoughts, and with no prior indication that would happen. It's not that it'd be a big mark against you if that happens, it's what you'd do afterwards in response that would determine how well you handled it.

Being considerate to the person you're having whatever relationship with isn't just about trying to hurt-proof your way out of every possible trouble that could come along before it could happen, like locking yourselves in straitjackets in a room made of foam. There are unarguably bad outcomes you can guard against, certainly, but being considerate is at least as much about being reasonable and conscientious in response to unpleasant things happening, and being able to chart a course that's fair to everyone from there.

In this kind of case, I don't think the most considerate thing to do when you hear somebody say "I would like to have casual sex" is to assume it won't end well, at least not because of them. I think the most considerate thing to do (assuming one would indeed gain enjoyment from the activity of sex with them, and would themselves accept the offer), not counting to look at your emotions on it before accepting, is just to be prepared for them to change their minds later, not to assume they will.

[Phoenix Wright]

The world isn't that perfect, and I don't believe in blaming the other person.

I would say it's shared, personally. Which means the pursuer still has some fault.

eh?

explain yourself.

There's no way you can possible know that. No way. Not unless you have some sort of spider sense as to who's lying/hiding something, and who isn't.

You'd be surprised, actually. There have been women who were SO afraid of hurting men's feelings, that they've actually allowed themselves to be married to people they don't truly love! This is, of course, discounting the possibility that your partner might have some sort of mental disorder, like Borderline Personality Disorder or something.

The real problem with this argument, though, is that I feel like you're making this entirely based on assumptions. You SAY that there's no one who would have that much trouble expressing themselves, but how would you know that? Have you done studies of how well the average person expresses themselves? Are you a Psychology major?

i don't care to determine if she's lying. i go by her words.

are you telling me i'm incapable of knowing whether a woman would like to have sex with me or not? words aren't the only way to communicate--body language is oft times more honest and reliable when it comes to determining if a girl is interested in you.

heh. i don't need to be a psych major to understand the basics of human psychology. i don't need to conduct studies to be able to determine that the average person can express:

"i do want to fuck."

or

"i do not want to fuck."

not exactly put so blatantly in reality, but i don't think it's too much of a damn assumption to think the average person can get one of either of those two responses across to a potential partner.

If not, then unless you've dated like, 50,000 women, or some other ridiculous amount in your life time, your assumptions are only that. Assumptions.

i don't need a sample size anywhere near this large to be able to make any sort of statistical inference. i would need about several hundred. unfortunately, i haven't dated hundreds of random women, either. :(

Indeed it is. That's why you'd best take the time to get to know them first before having any carnal relationships with them.

i meant a person's feelings on sex are variable from person-to-person. if i meet a girl i'd only like to have sex with, and she feels the same way, BOOM! it's completely okay to do it. if i meet a girl and would rather hold off until later, and she feels the same way, it's okay there too.

Of course not. But, again, You. Don't. Know! Which woman is which, I ask you? I certainly wouldn't know, and I don't see how you would either.

In fact, you don't even know if a partner is going to be someone who was initially fine with no strings attached, but then found herself falling in love with you! What do you do in that situation?! Tell her you fell in love with someone else I suppose, but it's going to be way easier on her if you never started anything to begin with!

there's no point in waiting that long in many situations.

i break it off or maybe i developed stronger feelings too. or, i keep screwing her without regards to how she feels. i wouldn't advise the latter.

I find it to be way more than just "in bad taste" actually, but that's just me. So now that I've addressed those specific questions...

i say put more blame on the cheater than on the partner she cheated with.

The problem that I have with the arguments that you and Dondon have are that, I feel like they only make total sense if you don't take too much time to worry about how the other person is feeling. I, myself, try to live my life every day in a way that prioritizes the other person rather than myself. So, for me, ANYTHING that could jeopardize the health of the other person, whether or not they're already messed up to begin with, is unacceptable to me, especially if it's for something so petty.

that's noble of you, but all-in-all an unreasonable expectation of everyone else. people look out for themselves first, or possibly family, and move onto others later.

I mean, you say it yourself, sex isn't that important. So, I ask you, if it is so unimportant, then why even bother with it outside of a committed relationship? Why seek out casual partners if there is even the slightest, 1/4048 chance that I'm right? It's not as though you get much of anything outside of a bit of fun.

again, no! that is not what i'm saying! my point is that people will attach their own importance to sex with a partner, depending on that partner. sex with some girl i met in the club last night won't mean anything, especially if i were to compare it to sex with a significant other. sex means different things in different settings.

because a probability of ~.00025 is basically zero. ergo, you aren't correct.

seriously speaking, right about what, exactly?

a little bit of fun is why i do it in the first place.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[TheBattyOne]

I think porn is entertainment, at its core. But it can become unhealthy, especially if approached with the wrong mindset.

Child pornography is illegal for a reason, and I by no means condone it or any other form of pornography that is harmful in intent or nature. (BDSM is fine, as long as it's obviously consensual. I have a thing about gags. I just don't like them because it plants a seed of doubt in my mind that the person who is gagged may not be enjoying themselves. I know it's not rational, but as long as they can't physically SAY what they're thinking or that they want to stop, I get uncomfortable.)

One should be aware that porn is fiction. It is staged and acted and edited just like any other filmed medium. It's fake. Don't do exactly what you saw in the video and expect the exact same results. A lot of the actual sex is missing, like the foreplay and the part before that where people get to know each other. Sex is a great bonding experience and a way to learn a lot about a person, and often implies some level of trust. Those things are not present in porn because that is not its purpose. (The line becomes fuzzier with written stories because they're, you know, stories with time for character development. Sometimes.)

I think the main issue with porn is that too many young people learn most of their sexual techniques from it and think that porn depicts sex accurately. It really doesn't. And it's really not that pleasurable. Plus, it takes a long time to train that mindset out of people.

Having said that, it's good fun if you know that it's not realistic and are okay with that. It can be fun to watch as a couple, and it can be fun to attempt to recreate it. Just... you know, be careful. Sexual injuries are awful things to deal with.

[FionordeQuester]

Ok Phoenix, and Rehab, I had something written up, but, after talking it over with Eclipse, I think it'd be best if we call it here. I mean, my basic point is that the rewards of casual sex just are not worth the risks it has, but if you disagree, then that's that. I have my beliefs, and I have yours, and since I respect the both of you, there's no sense in continuing a debate that'll just get ourselves riled up, right? So, have a nice day!

[Phoenix Wright]

riled up over what? the last time i was honest to goodness "riled up" was several years ago when that user ("black..." something else) with a dart avatar made me really angry. since then, i may have had points where i had slightly more emotionally charged statements or had a bitter tone (towards dondon and olwen in that one topic i can't remember, and a couple others with olwen), but i haven't been "riled up" in a very long time. i'm not going to get riled up over a discussion here, bro. i'd like to at least think i'm just a little bit more mature than that.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

riled up over what? the last time i was honest to goodness "riled up" was several years ago when that user ("black..." something else) with a dart avatar made me really angry. since then, i may have had points where i had slightly more emotionally charged statements or had a bitter tone (towards dondon and olwen in that one topic i can't remember, and a couple others with olwen), but i haven't been "riled up" in a very long time. i'm not going to get riled up over a discussion here, bro. i'd like to at least think i'm just a little bit more mature than that.

Well, this is a sensitive topic, and I think I've been known to come off as too extreme or insensitive, so I wanted to avoid that this time.

[Phoenix Wright]

well, i don't mind at all. so if you wanna continue, i say go for it.

[FionordeQuester]

Well then Wrighto! And Rehab, if you happen to be reading. We shall continue!

That said, here's the argument...

It's no bad thing to be considerate of other people, but eventually in the "there's no way you can know ___ about another person" train of thought, there comes a point where it loops around so far that the only real option you have is to trust what the other person tells you. Or, at least, to trust them to be the way they say they are, while being accepting if they reveal some nuance to their position (or even if they end up backpedalling a bit) later. It could be considered a bit presumptuous to assume that they don't mean they're fine enough with casual sex to enjoy it, on balance, when they say they are.

So basically, if you live too much in fear, you stop yourself from even having a life at all. Life is full of risk, and you have to draw the line somewhere, right? If that's what you're saying, I feel as though I get where you're coming from. But the thing is, that line of logic, to me, only applies to situations where you're either literally hurting yourself psychologically, or when you're preventing yourself from doing something that's worth doing.

With casual sex though? There's literally no point, at all. You have your fun, sure, but that subsides after only a day or so (unless of course, you're literally not going a day without sex I guess). And what, if by some unlikely circumstance, something goes wrong? Like your birth control failing or something? Guess who's life is potentially going to go way downhill? Do you know how I'd feel if something like that were to happen JUST because I wanted one night's worth of fun?

The ideal casual sex relationship is very much a "take-as-you-go" sort of thing, where all parties communicate what they're feeling about having casual sex as they go. The people involved are supposed to be free to discuss things if and when their feelings start becoming more complicated for them than simply "having sex with you is fun and I would like to continue having it."

I wouldn't know, personally. I'm just including this so you don't feel like I was cherry picking stuff from your argument, you know?

Casual sex "not being for me/you/us" is always fine, but "because somebody might get hurt" is a reason that wants for a bit of refining, because somebody "might get hurt" at any stage of any kind of relationship, romantic/sexual or not. That's part of the nature of forming attachments (though not to say that's an entirely bad thing, of course).

There's a distinct different between those two scenarios though. When you're actually trying to form a relationship, that's something that is worth it, because it involves a union that is (hopefully) lifelong, mutually beneficial to both people, wonderful, and where you don't really have to worry about those negatives I brought up.

Casual sex, on the other hand, is nothing but a night's worth of fun, even discounting all of the risks associated with it. Again, and I'm sorry to repeat myself, but a reward has to actually be worth the risk for me to actually take said risks!!

Depending on who's involved, somebody might get hurt (emotionally) if you start jogging together. Somebody might get hurt just from saying "yes, I would like to be friends with you," even with no romance attached to anybody's thoughts, and with no prior indication that would happen. It's not that it'd be a big mark against you if that happens, it's what you'd do afterwards in response that would determine how well you handled it.

But I believe it is a big mark against you, at least if you're aware of the risks.

Being considerate to the person you're having whatever relationship with isn't just about trying to hurt-proof your way out of every possible trouble that could come along before it could happen, like locking yourselves in straitjackets in a room made of foam. There are unarguably bad outcomes you can guard against, certainly, but being considerate is at least as much about being reasonable and conscientious in response to unpleasant things happening, and being able to chart a course that's fair to everyone from there.

But I'm not putting a straight-jacket on myself! I live a WONDERFUL life! I have everything I want, besides an awesome girlfriend! And I just don't understand how any of you guys are putting straight-jackets on yourself just because you hold off on sex for a bit. There's a distinct difference between putting a straight-jacket on yourself, and deciding that something might be fun, but isn't worth the risk.

Again, I ask you, what's the big deal about casual sex anyways, aside from it being kinda fun? What's so important about it that taking a risk with someone's life is worth it?

In this kind of case, I don't think the most considerate thing to do when you hear somebody say "I would like to have casual sex" is to assume it won't end well, at least not because of them.

Nah, I'm not blaming them for it. I'm just doing what I think is a good "risks vs. rewards" analysis. And to me, this is one of the situations where the reward is minimal, and the risks are great, even if those risks aren't very likely to occur.

I think the most considerate thing to do (assuming one would indeed gain enjoyment from the activity of sex with them, and would themselves accept the offer), not counting to look at your emotions on it before accepting, is just to be prepared for them to change their minds later, not to assume they will.

I'll grant you, that's not a bad way either. But it still seems worse than my way.

It's no bad thing to be considerate of other people, but eventually in the "there's no way you can know ___ about another person" train of thought, there comes a point where it loops around so far that the only real option you have is to trust what the other person tells you. Or, at least, to trust them to be the way they say they are, while being accepting if they reveal some nuance to their position (or even if they end up backpedalling a bit) later. It could be considered a bit presumptuous to assume that they don't mean they're fine enough with casual sex to enjoy it, on balance, when they say they are.

It also seems presumptuous, to me, to think that they may NEVER end up getting pregnant, or for them to turn out to be someone else's partner. Again, it's one of those things where you just don't know. Why should I take a risk like that when whatever "reward" I get is some thrill that'll fade after a few hours?

eh?

explain yourself.

They got hurt partially because you pursued something so utterly pointless.

i don't care to determine if she's lying. i go by her words.

are you telling me i'm incapable of knowing whether or not a woman would like to have sex with me or not? words aren't the only way to communicate--body language is oft times more honest and reliable when it comes to determining if a girl is interested in you or not.

heh. i don't need to be a psych major to understand the basics of human psychology. i don't need to conduct studies to be able to determine that the average person can express:

"i do want to fuck."

or

"i do not want to fuck."

not exactly put so blatantly in reality, but i don't think it's too much of a damn assumption to think the average person can get one of either of those two responses across to a potential partner.

No no no! I'm sure you can at least tell if a person wants to have sex with you or not. The problem is though, you don't know what sex will do to them, nor can you tell why they want to have sex with you. You can't tell if it's to spite their partner, or because they feel empty and worthless otherwise, or because they think a night of sex will somehow make you want to form a loving relationship with them, etc.

Where you're making the assumption, in other words, is in assuming that all of these possibilities are so remote, that they're not even worth considering as possibilities. But of course, you can't possibly know that, unless you've done an insane amount of research.

i don't need a sample size anywhere near this large to be able to make any sort of statistical inference. i would need about several hundred. unfortunately, i haven't dated hundreds of random women, either. :(

Alright, fine, you have me there. Don't feel bad about yourself though!

i meant a person's feelings on sex are variable from person-to-person. if i meet a girl i'd only like to have sex with, and she feels the same way, BOOM! it's completely okay to do it.

Thing of it is, real life isn't nearly so black and white with all people. I mean heck, what happens if she misinterprets your advances as something more? Do you always say to every potential mate "hey, I'm not actually interested in you as a girlfriend, but I'd still like to butter your muffins! How about it?"? If not, cool, but I always imagine that what most people do is leave out the first part, and then just sort of assume that their partner knows that it's nothing but a fling, despite the pursuer never saying as much, at which point, yeah, you are making an assumption...

And that's even WITHOUT considering the possibility that the two of you are drunk at the time, at which point she might NOT have wanted to have sex with you, or wouldn't have had she been thinking clearly.

i break it off or maybe i developed stronger feelings too. or, i keep screwing her without regards to how she feels. i wouldn't advise the latter.

Then you prove my point. There's no way of starting a casual sex relationship while still avoiding many of the more impleasant possibilities. Of course, as Rehab says, trying to start a romantic relationship has those same risks, but the difference there is that the reward is actually worth the risk! A casual sex relationship isn't.

i say put more blame on the cheater than on the partner she cheated with.

I'm guessing you've started some casual sex relationships yourself, so I'm not going to argue this point, and say that you deserve to be scolded for it. But I don't think that you're taking the potential risks as seriously as you should, and, I'm guessing, probably weren't aware of them until I brought it up. I'd still like you to at least consider them, regardless of how this debate ends. Would that be alright?

that's noble of you, but all-in-all an unreasonable expectation of everyone else. people look out for themselves first, or possibly family, and move onto others later.

So it's a conflict of value systems that we have then. If that's the case, we may have just come to an impasse right here ...I mean heck, I'm sure my argument loses a lot of weight when you don't value strangers as highly as yourself. So, one last question. Would you still be unconvinced even if you did hold other people with equal value to yourself? That's a question I would like to have answered before we end this debate.

again, no! that is not what i'm saying! my point is that people will attach their own importance to sex with a partner, depending on that partner. sex with some girl i met in the club last night won't mean anything, especially if i were to compare it to sex with a significant other. sex means different things in different settings.

That may be to you, but what about to her? Again, I'm sure you can correctly interpret whether or not she wanted to have sex with you (at least, assuming that you guys aren't drunk or something at the time). But I doubt you would be able to be so accurate as to how it made her feel afterwards.

because a probability of ~.00025 is basically zero. ergo, you aren't correct.

seriously speaking, right about what, exactly?

About something bad happening to her, emotional, physical (like an unwanted pregnancy), or otherwise.

a little bit of fun is why i do it in the first place.

That's what I thought. So what is it about a little bit of fun that's worth the risk? I mean, even assuming that I'm wrong, and I did nothing but waste my time and missout on some fun...well so what? The only three people who are harmed by that are, to coin a phrase by Damon Gant, "me, myself, and I". But if you're the one who's wrong, who suffers then? The woman, the baby she might be born with, AND you yourself, since you have to live with your decision. I ask you, which is the lesser of two evils here?

So, the crux of my argument is this. This is the good things that can happen with casual sex...

Good: A night's worth of fun. Maybe a partner that you can continue having lots of fun with...maybe.

And these are the bad things that can happen with casual sex...

Bad: Unexpected pregnancy due to birth control failing, you accidentally ended up banging someone else's girlfriend/boyfriend, they may end up developing feelings for you even if they didn't intend to, you may have accidentally ended up banging an insecure person who feels as though their sexuality is the only thing that makes them special...

So basically, I have no idea how casual sex can pass anyone's "Risks vs. Rewards" analysis unless they were under some kind of psychological pressure. Like, I dunno, they wanted to increase their social standing, or prove to people that they're not losers, or something stupid like that.

Edited May 27, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

With casual sex though? There's literally no point, at all. You have your fun, sure, but that subsides after only a day or so (unless of course, you're literally not going a day without sex I guess).

this is not an argument. there is literally no point at all to a whole number of leisurely activities, other than leisure, pleasure, etc. in itself. the premise that there is no point to casual sex is also debatable.

So basically, I have no idea how casual sex can pass anyone's "Risks vs. Rewards" analysis unless they were under some kind of psychological pressure. Like, I dunno, they wanted to increase their social standing, or prove to people that they're not losers, or something stupid like that.

if the person is not under the illusion that casual sex is guaranteed to lead to something bad (which you seem to be!), then it passes the risk/reward analysis. it's really that simple.

[FionordeQuester]

this is not an argument. there is literally no point at all to a whole number of leisurely activities, other than leisure, pleasure, etc. in itself. the premise that there is no point to casual sex is also debatable.

Ah, but you forget! Most leisurely activities don't put other people at any sort of risk, while casual sex does! So your point falls flat.

if the person is not under the illusion that casual sex is guaranteed to lead to something bad (which you seem to be!), then it passes the risk/reward analysis. it's really that simple.

Well of course something bad isn't guaranteed to happen, but there's still a risk. And even if it's as low as a 1% chance, I'd say it still fails that "Risks vs. Rewards" analysis. Because the fact of the matter is, ANYTHING that risks another human being for no good reason should be unacceptable.

Edited May 27, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

Ah, but you forget! Most leisurely activities don't put other people at any sort of risk, while casual sex does! So your point falls flat.

uh, yes they do. i play squash for leisure; i can hit a ball into your eye or smash you with my racket, or i can injure myself. i play dominion (a card game) for leisure, and i can really frustrate an opponent because i happen to be very good at the game, or i myself can get extremely frustrated if luck doesn't go my way. i like casual debating for leisure, which can burn bridges with friends if you're not careful.

almost every activity that is performed with another human involves risks, whether they be physical, emotional, social, or any combination of them.

Edited May 27, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

Ah, but you forget! Most leisurely activities don't put other people at any sort of risk, while casual sex does! So your point falls flat.

I think you're confusing something being immoral in practice vs. something actually being intrinsically immoral. I agree with you that casual sex, as college students often do it, is an extremely risky thing and even immoral to engage in (the likelihood of getting pregnant when drunk is extremely high, since protection is often ignored and condoms are used poorly).

But casual sex for the sake of itself doesn't seem to be immoral. Let's use every sort of protection imaginable. I'll use this as data. I'll assume some things in advance, i.e. that my way of calculating risks is not contradicted by science (birth control pills and condoms don't behave weirdly when used together, for example). I don't think the numbers will matter much in the end.

Imagine a couple having casual sex is using all of the following: a male condom, a female condom, a copper IUD, implant, diaphragm, spermicide and the rhythm method. (This is a very strange, safe girl indeed.) The chance is: (0.18 x 0.21 x 0.8 x 0.05 x 0.12 x 0.28 x 0.24) x 100 = 0.001% chance of getting pregnant. For the sake of comparison, the odds of getting hit by lightning once in your lifetime is 1 in 3000, which is 0.033%. But it's not immoral to walk outside and get hit by lightning.

There's nothing inherently immoral about casual sex itself.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

They got hurt partially because you pursued something so utterly pointless.

i meant your contradiction:

The world isn't that perfect, and I don't believe in blaming the other person.

I would say it's shared, personally. Which means the pursuer still has some fault.

what do you believe?

No no no! I'm sure you can at least tell if a person wants to have sex with you or not. The problem is though, you don't know what sex will do to them, nor can you tell why they want to have sex with you. You can't tell if it's to spite their partner, or because they feel empty and worthless otherwise, or because they think a night of sex will somehow make you want to form a loving relationship with them, etc.

if she lies to me about her feelings, that's not my fault. if she thinks that a night of sex will make me want a relationship, she's going about it the complete wrong way. honestly, if this were ever the case, she'd learn the lesson that giving it to someone after having talked for a few hours isn't the best method to forming a loving, deep, and trusting relationship.

Where you're making the assumption, in other words, is in assuming that all of these possibilities are so remote, that they're not even worth considering as possibilities. But of course, you can't possibly know that, unless you've done an insane amount of research.

no, i understand that men take advantage of women all the time--works the other way too! thing is, not all women are frail things that even need or want relationships. those women are not impossible to find, and in fact are everywhere around college.

i can tell, as can any other non-oblivious person, when a girl is not confident in herself, or doesn't know what she wants, or is full of herself. these are things you can find out when first meeting someone, sometimes even when you're already intoxicated! they are not difficult things to figure out. why is this point causing you so much trouble?

Alright, fine, you have me there. Don't feel bad about yourself though!

i was kidding. :P

Thing of it is, real life isn't nearly so black and white with all people. I mean heck, what happens if she misinterprets your advances as something more? Do you always say to every potential mate "hey, I'm not actually interested in you as a girlfriend, but I'd still like to butter your muffins! How about it?"? If not, cool, but I always imagine that what most people do is leave out the first part, and then just sort of assume that their partner knows that it's nothing but a fling, despite the pursuer never saying as much, at which point, yeah, you are making an assumption...

And that's even WITHOUT considering the possibility that the two of you are drunk at the time, at which point she might NOT have wanted to have sex with you, or wouldn't have had she been thinking clearly.

hahahaha, no, man.

some guys do leave out the theoretical "first part," and i think lying to get yourself in bed with a woman is immoral, but the sex itself is not immoral. this point is similar to olwen's.

personal rule of mine: don't have sex when i'm drunk. for a few reasons, actually. i don't think i need to get into that, but it is a rule that i follow for myself.

Then you prove my point. There's no way of starting a casual sex relationship while still avoiding many of the more impleasant possibilities. Of course, as Rehab says, trying to start a romantic relationship has those same risks, but the difference there is that the reward is actually worth the risk! A casual sex relationship isn't.

this isn't really an argument. i think both have desirable returns depending on the situation.

I'm guessing you've started some casual sex relationships yourself, so I'm not going to argue this point, and say that you deserve to be scolded for it. But I don't think that you're taking the potential risks as seriously as you should, and, I'm guessing, probably weren't aware of them until I brought it up. I'd still like you to at least consider them, regardless of how this debate ends. Would that be alright?

i'm well aware of the risks. i don't put my penis in anything that walks, man.

So it's a conflict of value systems that we have then. If that's the case, we may have just come to an impasse right here ...I mean heck, I'm sure my argument loses a lot of weight when you don't value strangers as highly as yourself. So, one last question. Would you still be unconvinced even if you did hold other people with equal value to yourself? That's a question I would like to have answered before we end this debate.

people look out for their own before anyone else. it is the natural way. given the chance, whose life would you save, mine or a close loved one? you can only save one of us. i don't really know what you mean by "value," though, so i can't answer your question, yet. would you take a bullet for any one stranger walking down the street, so that they may live, but you don't? even if you say yes to this question, i am inclined to not believe you.

That may be to you, but what about to her? Again, I'm sure you can correctly interpret whether or not she wanted to have sex with you (at least, assuming that you guys aren't drunk or something at the time). But I doubt you would be able to be so accurate as to how it made her feel afterwards.

not sure what this has to do with initiating casual sex. you don't know to any degree of accuracy what you're significant other of six months will feel about you two more months from now, eight months from now, ten years from now. not being privy to another's every thought doesn't mean i can't interact with them sexually or otherwise.

About something bad happening to her, emotional, physical (like an unwanted pregnancy), or otherwise.

living life without risks is no life at all, i say. if i make a mistake, then it's up to me to deal with that mistake (which i would be happy to do). if it's emotional pain, then i think communication can help remedy the situation.

That's what I thought. So what is it about a little bit of fun that's worth the risk? I mean, even assuming that I'm wrong, and I did nothing but waste my time and missout on some fun...well so what? The only three people who are harmed by that are, to coin a phrase by Damon Gant, "me, myself, and I". But if you're the one who's wrong, who suffers then? The woman, the baby she might be born with, AND you yourself, since you have to live with your decision. I ask you, which is the lesser of two evils here?

whoa, man.

So, the crux of my argument is this. This is the good things that can happen with casual sex...

Good: A night's worth of fun. Maybe a partner that you can continue having lots of fun with...maybe.

And these are the bad things that can happen with casual sex...

Bad: Unexpected pregnancy due to birth control failing, you accidentally ended up banging someone else's girlfriend/boyfriend, they may end up developing feelings for you even if they didn't intend to, you may have accidentally ended up banging an insecure person who feels as though their sexuality is the only thing that makes them special...

So basically, I have no idea how casual sex can pass anyone's "Risks vs. Rewards" analysis unless they were under some kind of psychological pressure. Like, I dunno, they wanted to increase their social standing, or prove to people that they're not losers, or something stupid like that.

and forcing a relationship with another person? what sorts of consequences do you believe rise from that?

[FionordeQuester]

Hey, just so you guys know, I may go on a brief hiatus in regards to this thread. I do not believe that sex and emotion can be separated nearly as readily as Phoenix Wright seems to imply...but I haven't said so thus far because I did not have the scientific know-how to speak authoritatively on that...

So, I'm going to talk to someone who DOES. And this isn't to say that I think my previous point about causing unintentional harm isn't a valid one. It's just becoming clear that I can't win this argument on that alone.

[Phoenix Wright]

i think you're being overly cautious. and "separating" emotion from sex? that isn't the case.

[FionordeQuester]

"Separating" emotion from sex? that isn't the case.

Really? I got the impression that "separating emotion from sex" was the whole justification behind casual sex not being harmful! Otherwise, isn't it true that you're forming an emotional relationship with anyone you have sex with?

Edited June 2, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

do you find casual sex robotic or something? attraction is an emotion.

[FionordeQuester]

do you find casual sex robotic or something? attraction is an emotion.

I disagree. "Attraction", I believe, is a sensation. The desire that can come from attraction is an emotion, but attraction itself (or "eros", "lust"...whatever you want to call it, though "lust" has a negative connotation) is simply a sensation...

Either way, your argument seems to be that separating after a one night stand or something like that won't usually have any negative repercussions.

Edited June 2, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

I disagree. "Attraction", I believe, is a sensation. The desire that can come from attraction is an emotion, but attraction itself (or "eros", "lust"...whatever you want to call it, though "lust" has a negative connotation) is simply a sensation...

Either way, your argument seems to be that separating after a one night stand or something like that won't usually have any negative repercussions.

that is physical attraction, or attractiveness. attraction--feeling interested in someone--is entirely an emotion. and, like all emotions, has varying levels of intensity, depending on social factors, psychology, et cetera.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

that is physical attraction, or attractiveness. attraction--feeling somewhat attached to someone--is entirely an emotion. and, like all emotions, has varying levels of intensity, depending on social factors, psychology, et cetera.

Then how can you say that casual sex is something that people can just do without having any emotional issues? If you're attracted to somebody, and are indulged by them only for them to say "alright, fling's over", isn't it just going to be that much harder for the woman to let the man go?

Edited June 2, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

Then how can you say that casual sex is something that people can just do without having any emotional issues? If you're attracted to somebody, and are indulged by them only for them to say "alright, fling's over", isn't it just going to be that much harder for the woman to let the man go?

because much of the time that's all either party is looking for--a short burst of extreme sexual attraction and companionship. most people know what they're getting into, and don't become completely attached to another person after a night of sex. i don't know why you insist on implying that these sorts of interactions always end up badly. they don't.