How much sex is too much?

Casual sex is bad in essence. Sex protected by the vow of marriage is good in essence.

 

There's buckets of evidence. Look around.

 

it depends on ones capacity......

 

This thread will be on page 2 tomorrow, and next week no one will remember it. So posting a bunch of things people will most likely never see is, well, futile.

Anyone who's engaged in casual sex knows it's wrong. Or they at one time knew until they stopped listening to their conscience. Or they're living in denial, which is the power of self-deception.

Look at what the sexual revolution of the 60s has done to first-world societies today:
1. Birth control. (The pill is a Class 1 carcinogen.)
2. Abortion as back-up birth control.
3. Hook ups.
4. Sex friends.
5. Disregard for the humanity of others.
6. Objectification.
7. Designer babies.
Etc etc

 

Aryangor,

You asked for alternative points of view earlier, perhaps someone who had an argument for casual sex? In that line, here are a couple of links to articles detailing what can happen when one makes too much of a fetish out of remaining "pure" until marriage. These are first person accounts, quite sincere and food for thought. They're not exactly an argument in favor of casual sex, but I don't think you'll find that. Let me know what you think, if you have the time to read and comment.

http://www.alternet.org/i-took-christian-virginity-pledge-child-and-it-nearly-destroyed-my-life?page=0%2C0

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/12/the-real-world-damage-of-the-purity-culture.html

 

I don't really think that's a conservative approach. "Conservative" means essentially to adhere to old ideas as tried-and-true. Even among religious, the idea that "sex is bad" considerably rare. With Christians, it's considered an important thing to be shared only between a husband and wife, but it's definitely encouraged (there's an entire book in the Bible based around erotic love). For Catholics, I can't say, but I do know they tend to be far more strictly religious (that is, they adhere to rules and regulations) and some of those statutes may or may not come directly from the old Roman Catholic church - old traditions die hard.

 

So wow this thread has been going on for awhile. So if you believe sex should wait till marriage all that then do it because you feel its right not because of religion or society but because its what you want otherwise it won't hold.

So I don't write about my sexual exploits on here just because well its kinda private but I will give you a view point that I had. Now I'm looking for a relationship but my prejudices against it started when I was probably in 6th grade I would here people were "dating"(honestly its not real dating until high school or college) and that someone would cheat on someone else and so I thought why not just have casual relationships why go through all this trouble all this work just to be let down and be in pain.

See I always thought well once I got to know them I might not like them anymore so basically all my experiences have been casual because I didn't want to be let down or to have to face the fact that maybe I failed or they cheated or have to deal with a break up. Obviously if I could go back I would go after different girls and try to date them but I mean its life we go through phases.

But I'm starting to realize that relationships are more than I thought they were and that I probably just wasn't a fan of commitment because I always thought I might be missing out on something else. In the end your best bet is a relationship but not out of loneliness or because you feel you "need" someone but because you help each other grow as people. I just don't think I've met that kind of person yet.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Exactly.

Personally, my takeaway from the articles was that sex is an important part of marriage, and keeping it out of the courtship process altogether is probably a mistake. One wants a lifelong bond that is based on love and includes lustful feelings. Within the relationship at least, that stuff needs to be talked about in the open and treated seriously. It's not good to be afraid of one's feelings to the point of not addressing them at all.

As for the problem of abortion (or becoming a single mom), that is a powerful reason not to engage in careless sexual activity. Although, interestingly enough, I don't know anyone who used both hormonal birth control and condoms, correctly each and every time, who ever experienced an unintended pregnancy. The ironic thing is, among my "libertine heathen" circle of acquaintance, there have been zero abortions and zero out-of-wedlock births, while among the nominal Christians and hardcore fundamentalists I've met, there have been plenty of both, sadly. Treating sex as a shameful thing seems to lead to unplanned sex, and that, combined with ignorance, seems to lead to the majority of ill consequences.

 

I agree with you Dima.

God's plan is very simple: vaginal sex between husband and wife. EVERY type of sex outside of that is sin.

I'm a virgin. But I am strongly opposed to any type of sexual promiscuity. I will ONLY have sex with my wife since sex is the physical expression of the love between a husband and his wife. A man who respects women would NEVER commit fornication. Men gave up their masculinity and no longer treat women properly. Most women are now walking around dressed like whores which should be considered a CRIME, they are supposed to be covered from knees to shoulders.

 

Iliander, I say the whore-dressing women are God's plan to test the strength of your faith. You know, like the Holocaust and such. Embrace them with Chrisitian love and they might put on some more clothes, like the kissed frog turning into a princess.

 

iliander, sounds like a lot of Catholic traditions to me. You know that kind of stuff gives Christianity a bad name? Because all of the opinions that you claimed there resound remarkably with their strict Catholic counterparts. Need I remind you the origin of such, which was to exert control over and extort the Catholic populace?

The one thing Jesus didn't come to do is institute more law and regulation. He came to reinstate a relationship with God - one that the marriage between husband and wife is a microcosm (read: small example) of. Exerting control over women is not the way to encourage purity or modesty. And even though I get what you're saying - women this day and age do tend to reveal more than is modest - what you're suggesting sounds on par with Islam, if not for the same reason.

Also, it's pretty arrogant to declare that because men don't follow your lofty statute, they don't respect women. I've definitely with more than just one woman in my life (especially as I'm a divorcee), and though I would agree that it's a destructive process and that man is made to be with but one woman, it's ridiculous to start assigning labels to men.

All I'm saying here is that while I'm sure your heart is at least somewhat pointed in the right direction, you're wrapped up on law and regulation instead of relationship. It's written all over you perspective of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots". Your zeal is showing; you might want to wipe your chin, mate.

Remember the scripture that talks about love? Specifically, that if we do even the holiest and most righteous of things, but without love, it is worthless? Or about God's commandments for men to love their wives like Christ loved the church? That's a sacrificial, selfless love, and I daresay he didn't insert an addendum, "...and thou shalt scoff at others as wretches."

 

Iliander, I'm a strongly believeing Catholic. But at the end of the day, how can we judge? God doesn't even judge. Judging what is a sin and what is not is trying to be better than God. You don't know God's plans. You're not God. I'm not either. But I think that God loves us all with infinite love, and if you're Christian, you believe that he already gave his life to save us all. It already happened. We're saved forever, anal intercourse or not. The Bible has been written by humans. I'm especially talking about the Ancient Testament part here. I don't believe I'll go to hell because I consider having sex with women. Because it's love. God doesn't hate anybody, for Christ's sake. I talk more in depth about this in my journal.

Besides, I think that if you continue thinking that way, then masturbation is worse than sex out of man/woman marriage. Because you don't even love anyone else, you love yourself. It's vain, impossible to blossom since the beginning love. Or, it's love that disguise in physical pleasure.

Trying to base solely on the scriptures is dangerous, Jesus warned the Jews about it in several gospels. There's a risk to quickly come to conclusion that anyone who doesn't follow written rules will not be saved. I don't believe in this. I believe that anyone can be saved if he chose it. And he can chose it with billions way. If a gay man loves his husband. If he treats him with respect, trust him, take care always to renew and blossom his love for him, and if his husband does the same. Why should it matter if they have sex? After all it's also the physical proof of his love. And take a pastor that actually beat his wife, but continue to preach love and forgiveness every Sunday. In both these examples, they chose for themselves.

And about women dressing up like whores... I promise you man. I promise you that when I'll finally have reach my goal weight, if it's hot outside, there will be absolutely no way to stop me to dress in a light way. And if it's sexy, EVEN BETTER. Because I do it for myself. And I've suffered from lack of self confidence for too long not to allow myself to wear stuff that pleases me, makes me feel powerful and attractive. And if it makes it harder for you not to masturbate, what can I say? I'm sorry, sincerely, but I won't change. Because it regards myself. Calling self confidence a crime is an aberration. Or, I've actually been doing right all my freaking life.

Oh and besides - shirtless men hanging around every time it's 20°C exists too. It's hot when they're hot. Should it be legalized too?

Anyway Weiland said it all better than me.

 

Wait Anne, perverted freaks looking at your tits/legs as on a fuckable piece of meat and nothing else make you feel more powerful and self-confident? I thought this was against your ideals. I'd understand if you just wanted to wear light clothes because they're more comfortable in hot temperatures - I too hate thick shirts and pants sticking to my back from sweat - but the latter argument I do not understand.

That would be like feeling proud because you've won million bucks at a lottery and people suddenly start making friends with you. I do understand the drive to show off with your body once you improve it, but maybe along with physical improvement a spiritual one should come. I know you're aiming at that too, and so I'm just giving you an opportunity to rethink your strategies. No offense intended.

 

I don't know, it never happened to me. I don't know what it's like to be considered attractive. It's always sarcastic and ironic and it hurts. I guess I'll have to wait to be really attractive before being able to answer you. Something tells me that it does suck, but still, I do it for myself. If guys are freaks, it's their problem right? That doesn't mean I'd probably like it to be harassed or objectified. Not at all. But I'd still do it, I admit I don't know why I'm thinking that, but it doesn't bother me to objectify myself. I'd love to look at my mirror and think godmanit lady you're sexy as f and I wanna shag you. Because if I think this for myself, it means that I'm self-romanticizing - I'm dressing like my own lover. By loving myself, loving my style, loving how I'm dressed, I'll increase my chances to attract the people with similar styles, which is actually my primary goal. I have no idea if it's the most effective method or even the best one. But it's the one that appeals me the most.

I'm not offended, actually thank you for making me think. I believe that the spiritual improvement is precisely what leads to physical improvement - accepting myself, becoming healthier in the mind, regarding myself as a human being with A RIGHT to be attractive.

Hmm. It's interesting. Let's say if I go out in the street and dress "lightly", but in a way that attracts myself sexually, in a way that resemble how people I find hot dress. I do this for myself, and I also do this for people to be attracted by me, it's obvious. So in a certain measure, I would be pleased to have heads turning on me. But my real goal is to attract the very people I dress up like. This is why I could get offended by the objectification - objectification doesn't bother me if it's mutual, if it's shared.

I admit that for now I'm not deep enough in the work on myself to fully be able to think that the problem is objectification. I'm trying too hard to get healthy for now. We'll see afterwards. I just wanna know how it feels like to be as hot as Bianca. To be able to go in the street with an outfit that reveals your tummy without feeling shame or guilt because you know "you could be better".

 

Actually, I HAD some people considering me attractive on this pornsite, and I hated it, and it's one of the strongest reasons I quit. I hated it so much because it felt so unnatural. I wasn't attracting myself. I was feeling like, why the f are you telling me that I'm hot? Why on Earth would you want to see me naked? I don't look like how I want to be mate. I know I could look so much better.

It's weird, but I've felt that too - being aroused by body types I normally am disgusted with. I don't know why, Coolidge effect? But I didn't understood it for myself. It looked indeed as raw objectification - I had a couple telling me to shot myself in the head because I refused to show my boobs - I almost went back to self-harm but quit PMO instead -, but I felt that there was a paradox, a distortion. Objectification in a healthy relationship is called sexual compatibility, right? Because there's all the mental part, the love glue, and all. But if you find your wife hot, if she's perfect too you, the most beautiful woman in Earth, ain't it objectification too? You see her as the most beautiful thing on Earth. Because you love her, right, but still.

Perhaps my reasoning is flawed - "accept yourself as you are bla bla bla" - but no sorry, I can't live like this. I can't live like this knowing that I could be better. Call it pride, I won't refute it. But I refuse to be satisfied with this body. I don't want people to be attracted by me without MYSELF attracting me. Otherwise it won't last, it's not harmonious, it's not balanced and it's bound to fail.

Sorry for this personal stuff, I know it's out of topic.

 

It's quite a paradox how everyone seems to be working on their bodies "so that they like themselves more", "that that are able to look in the mirror" and so on, but in the end one always assesses his looks in reference to the looks and preferences of others, right? Or maybe there is an "objective beauty" like the ancient Greeks argued - the ideal proportions etc. Maybe humans share some sort of inherent "beauty sensors". Obviously, there are all those evolutionary theories on that women seek fit sires so that they can protect the family and men seek big tits which can feed numerous offspring, etc... But then, how do you explain changing canons of beauty throughout history. In ancient Greece small dicks were perceived as sexy, in baroque fat women and pale men were perceived as attractive, and so on. The tanned, muscular, short-haired types showing off at today's beaches two hundred years ago would probably be thought to be well-fed peasants or slaves with a lot of physical work on their back.

To me, a woman with a beautiful face, hair and well-proportionate body that is dressed tastefully in a way that reveals only a tiny portion of her body is much more attractive than a blonde with big tits and a mini. The latter I associate with street hookers, the former with nobility, intelligence and good taste. That way I know she values herself (= loves herself!) and this alone turns me on in a way - but not like I want to go to bed with her on the first date. Rather like I want to marry her and wait a few years to finally get that inconceivable pleasure of our bodies merging into one. I find it sad how good-looking girls nowadays are ready to just reveal all their "assets" to any gawker on the street.

I, despite being said by some to have this Hollywood face, too have some complexes about the remainder of my body which I'm currently working at. And I often actually question my point in that: am I just trying to fit into certain cultural standards or am I somehow acting on a preprogrammed evolutionary mechanism of development of human specie. In the modern world there is no actual, pragmatic need to be fit - and yet many people still commit to it. I'm justifying my exercising by saying that the ideal woman of my dreams would appreciate me being fit. But how can I know she would actually like all those muscles and a masculine chest? Maybe she'd find it rather pathetic that I'm just blindly following the contemporary trends, maybe she'd think it's an expression of my insecurity about myself. Maybe I'd actually be more attractive as a self-confident skinny weakling. Maybe I'm just attributing/projecting my OWN preferences onto her.

Another thing is that exercising in itself is actually enjoyable. It somehow makes you feel stronger and more confident. Endorphins or some shit.

As for objectification, I would just drop this term for good. I personally consider all humans as objects, I don't accept any benefits or properties coming for granted only because you are a "human" and not an "object". And so, we as objects can pursue different values and pleasures. It is vital that we name these properly, for the sake of clarity of discussion.

Oh, and one last thing - even if we assume that being fit generally makes you feel better, I think it's important not to make it the central part of your identity. I'd treat it more like striving for completeness, with other factors being equally important.