Sex. Before or after?

So wait, relationships must follow technophile's conventional standards or else they don't count?
Uh right.

edit: Sorry friends do not count as a polling sample.

Technophile:

You're making it sound like two people meet, Person A says "Let's fuck," Person B says, "Okay." and that's that.

You DO realize people tend to talk to each other, right?

And yes, you can figure out if someone is right for you within 2 hours or however long you're talking.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You're the one who keeps bringing them up. I say, "if your very friends were able to start a relationship this way...

Right. Clearly, that example you just provided right there was me bringing up my friends and not you. OK.

Quote:

The point is, either it is entirely possible for such a relationship to start, or you feel that every single last one of your friends have retarded maturity and severe co-dependancy problems. It's your choice.

I thought we were past this already. I established in a previous post that I feel that, while a decent relationship certainly can start this way, it's just a riskier undertaking.

Quote:

Too bad you aren't doing precisely that.

Agreeing with everything you have to say without looking at the issue from different points of view is not what a debate and discussion consists of sir.

Quote:

So wait, relationships must follow technophile's conventional standards or else they don't count?
Uh right.

It's not my conventional standard. I was just listing my issues and drawbacks of opting to have sex so soon in a relationship and weighing it against the other options. No need to get so defensive.

Quote:

You DO realize people tend to talk to each other, right?

I know leeknat. But, sometimes people have really good sexual chemistry with strong physical attraction, but it pretty much ends there, so it's not like talking after the sex will make the relationship grow farther. In this case, if one person was infatuated by the other, then he or she pretty much had a sexual encounter in hopes of getting more only to be dissapointed.

Yes, I know that a fine relationship can grow from a hasty sexual encounter (after more pondering) but the stakes are higher.

Quote:

I established in a previous post that I feel that, while a decent relationship certainly can start this way, it's just a riskier undertaking.

And then you listed a bunch of things all relationships can come afoul of, none of which are intrinsically based on how you two met.

Actually, looking back on your posts, I didn't see any admission that I was right, unless you're counting the "I guess it could happen, maybe..." that you put in the first post. I'm hard pressed to see why this thread was even created if you admit you are wrong in the very first post.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Actually, looking back on your posts, I didn't see any admission that I was right,

That's because I didn't make one, and don't plan to. While I agree with you on some points of the issue, stating you're "right" would also mean that I do look down upon my friends. That's not the case, therefore, this admission that you've been searching for is just not gonna happen.

Quote:

I'm hard pressed to see why this thread was even created if you admit you are wrong in the very first post.

I don't. I wasn't completely sure where I stood on the issue in the first place. That's why I created the thread. I wanted to explore the topic a bit. After some discussion and comparisons with others (thanks to your posts in some part) and inaccurate assumptions (also thanks to your posts, but for the most part), I just have a slightly altered view.

There are a lot of men who picture every woman they meet naked and only think about having sex with them. I dunno if that's a disease or something like that, but it's a matter of fact.
I don't think that women are that malfunctioning.

Originally Posted by Technophile

I know leeknat. But, sometimes people have really good sexual chemistry with strong physical attraction, but it pretty much ends there, so it's not like talking after the sex will make the relationship grow farther. In this case, if one person was infatuated by the other, then he or she pretty much had a sexual encounter in hopes of getting more only to be dissapointed.

Now let's go the reverse.

How many people who are friends with someone hope that could could be more--but it never happens? Isn't that as frustrating as well?

Originally Posted by Leknaat

Now let's go the reverse.

How many people who are friends with someone hope that could could be more--but it never happens? Isn't that as frustrating as well?

That is also frustrating. However, I think having sex with someone in the hopes of developing more (especially if you're the type who's not really into casual sex) would be a lot more emotionally taxing.

Sufferers of unrequited love everywhere would probably disagree with you. Not to say that neither are a bunch of retards.

Me and my girlfriend first had sex 3 hours after we met. We've now been going out for over a year and a half.

People who make sex out to be some amazing spiritual event or something are stupid and frankly naive.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Sufferers of unrequited love everywhere would probably disagree with you.

Only till the sex lasts. I doubt they'll be filled with joy when the object of their desires ups and leaves after the sex.

Quote:

People who make sex out to be some amazing spiritual event or something are stupid and frankly naive.

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

No, rote quickies are possible in the confines of long-term relationships too.

Originally Posted by Technophile

Only till the sex lasts. I doubt they'll be filled with joy when the object of their desires ups and leaves after the sex.

As someone who's suffered from both chaste unrequited love and sex with too many feelings involved on my end, I would definitely say that chaste unrequited love is much, much worse. If they sleep with you it means they at least find you physically attractive, and that's much better than not being attracted to you at all.

Quote:

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

I will never cease to be amazed at the ability of virgins to make all sorts of assumptions about sex without ever having experienced any kind of sex at all. That's like me giving an entire lecture on how to sail a sailboat when I've never even ridden in one that someone else was sailing.

Why the fuck did you ask for our opinions if you didn't want to hear anything that didn't confirm that your view of things is correct? I'm tempted to close down the thread, since you keep trying to cut off any discussion that might take place.

Originally Posted by Technophile

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

Why romanticize sex so much?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by nadienne

I will never cease to be amazed at the ability of virgins to make all sorts of assumptions about sex without ever having experienced any kind of sex at all. That's like me giving an entire lecture on how to sail a sailboat when I've never even ridden in one that someone else was sailing.

Same here, too many people act like the heavens will sing and all the secrets of the world will be exposed once their cherry is popped.

Originally Posted by Technophile

That is also frustrating. However, I think having sex with someone in the hopes of developing more (especially if you're the type who's not really into casual sex) would be a lot more emotionally taxing.

Wait.

Have you been talking about the whole sex/love confusion thing? That sex and love are interchangeable?

Here's a lesson for those who may not know--Sex is the response of the body--Love is the response of the heart, the mind, and the soul. You don't have to love someone to respond to them physically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

No, rote quickies are possible in the confines of long-term relationships too.

Of course they are. However, Shin's comments make it seem like rote quickies are all that's possible. Regardless of the relationship's status.

Originally Posted by nadienne

As someone who's suffered from both chaste unrequited love and sex with too many feelings involved on my end, I would definitely say that chaste unrequited love is much, much worse. If they sleep with you it means they at least find you physically attractive, and that's much better than not being attracted to you at all.

You're the first person that I've encountered that was in such a situation that actually favores the dead end sex, as opposed to nothing. But hey, to each his or her own.

Originally Posted by nadienne

I will never cease to be amazed at the ability of virgins to make all sorts of assumptions about sex without ever having experienced any kind of sex at all. That's like me giving an entire lecture on how to sail a sailboat when I've never even ridden in one that someone else was sailing.

Originally Posted by Devo

Same here....

Save me your faulty analogies. Yeah, let's compare something mostly instinctual to a skill that requires a lot more honing and practice. =/

How is it wrong to assume that sex with someone that you actually have a full fledged relationship with can mount to more than whatever the one night stand with that hot guy/girl at the club will turn out to be?

Originally Posted by Leknaat

Have you been talking about the whole sex/love confusion thing?

Partly, yes.

Originally Posted by Leknnat

That sex and love are interchangeable?

Um, no. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. Because they're not interchangeable, if someone who wants a full fledged relationship, granted a casual sexual encounter to the object of his or her affection in order to be with them, only to be tossed aside afterwards, they'd be sorely dissapointed. Had it been a consensually casual encounter, it'd be a different story.

Originally Posted by Devo

Why romanticize sex so much?

Originally Posted by Devo

...too many people act like the heavens will sing and all the secrets of the world will be exposed once their cherry is popped

Oh come on, don't give me that typcal, virgin fantasy bullshit. This isn't about making sex to be some sacred ritual that cannot be used for merely recreational purposes. Yeah, ok. Casual sex, is just casual sex. Knew it before, know it now, I get it.

Again, my point is because such grandiose festivities and wonders will not commence when cherries are popped, it'd be risky for someone who wants sex served with some sort of an emotional connection with the other person, to just give it up within the first 3 hours that he or she spent actually talking to his/her crush or attractive stranger.

Originally Posted by nadienne

Why the fuck did you ask for our opinions if you didn't want to hear anything that didn't confirm that your view of things is correct?

I did want to hear them. That's the point. Give 'n take, throw around and compare different ideas and views!

Originally Posted by nadienne

I'm tempted to close down the thread, since you keep trying to cut off any discussion that might take place.

Stimulating discussion does not exclusively entail saying things like "oh ok, you're right" or "I agree with everything you have to say without questioning anything at all!" If that's too overbearing for you then go ahead and close the thread down. You're really not doing me any favors here by keeping it open if all I'm allowed to do is just agree with everyone else. God forbid we can actually compare our differing views without attacking eachother or having the "I'm always right and you're always wrong" mentality. =/

Originally Posted by Technophile

You're the first person that I've encountered that was in such a situation that actually favores the dead end sex, as opposed to nothing. But hey, to each his or her own.

We've already established that your experience doesn't amount to shit, I don't know why you keep bringing it up as though it were a valid resource.

Also, who said anything about dead end? It's still sex, it has value in and of itself.

Quote:

Save me your faulty analogies. Yeah, let's compare something mostly instinctual to a skill that requires a lot more honing and practice. =/

Heaven forfend. Do you honestly think that sex requires no practice? The first time you jump in the sack with your one true love, you'll make her multiple and last for two hours, will you? Humans, unlike animals who act basically on instinct, have sex for pleasure. And learning how to give pleasure takes skill, not instinct. I guarentee you that learning how to get a girl to orgasm takes alot more "honing" than figuring out which way the wind is blowing.

Also, "instinctual" rather contradicts your magical making love idea, so you might want to refrain from bringing it up.

Quote:

How is it wrong to assume that sex with someone that you actually have a full fledged relationship with can mount to more than whatever the one night stand with that hot guy/girl at the club will turn out to be?

"Mount." Brilliant.

Quote:

Stimulating discussion does not exclusively entail saying things like "oh ok, you're right" or "I agree with everything you have to say without questioning anything at all!" If that's too overbearing for you then go ahead and close the thread down. You're really not doing me any favors here by keeping it open if all I'm allowed to do is just agree with everyone else. God forbid we can actually compare our differing views without attacking eachother or having the "I'm always right and you're always wrong" mentality. =/

No, honey. What I was saying is that there's no point in having a "discussion" with a stone wall. You refuse to accept anything any of us say as valid. If your stance on the matter was so immovable, you shouldn't have created the thread to begin with, because no one wants to listen to the boy who thinks he's always right.