What Does Sex Mean to You?

[Frankia]

Power.

[Quilavaland]

Well to me sex is just a thing that feels nice, can make babies, and can spread disease. Nothing particularly special about it. I don't see why it defines religions and relationships. Should just be a private thing, and the only places where the law should get involved are safety and consent.

[Glorious Freedonia]

And why do you think it's immoral?

Because it is hedonistic and selfish to have sex for pleasure / outside of marriage, and it has the potential to cause dire emotional consequences, spread STDs, or create unwanted pregnancies.

Not having sex has worse emotional consequences than having sex.

[Huliereming]

And why do you think it's immoral?

Because it is hedonistic and selfish to have sex for pleasure / outside of marriage, and it has the potential to cause dire emotional consequences, spread STDs, or create unwanted pregnancies.

Perhaps so, but with the proper preparations, there's no problem. I think it's actually more selfish to deny people the right to such pleasure. After all, it's their bodies, not ours.

[Gezi Park]

I'm not interested in it. I've been an asexual ever since I was born. Though this doesn't mean I'm not interested in the opposite sex. It's just I don't have sexual drives. That's what they call "heteroromantic", I think.

[Alizeria]

It really depends on who it's with.

90% of the time it's something I consider grossly overrated; I would rather be doing something else.

But if it's with someone I care about then it's either fantastic (as with my ex fiancée) or it's a nice, if dull and unimaginative, expression of romance and passion (as with my most recent ex girlfriend.)

But as I said above, it really depends on who your partner is. I've had great sexual partners who I miss dearly, and I've had sexual partners so terrible that I've missed being single.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Its not hedonism. It's about happiness. A person who has a great amount of desire cannot be satisfied with a person who has none, and a person who has to have their certain fetishes realized in the act is not likely to be satisfied by a person who finds those fetishes disgusting. A person who is sexually unsatisfied often has a great deal of frustration stemming from their inability to relax, and a person who has a frustrated partner often becomes frustrated as well. These are relationships that cannot work, and they either need to be solved in a non-forceful way or the relationship needs to end.

People can change. They do change. I've seen it many times.

The biggest problem with the culturally-liberal approach to sex and relationships is that it basically teaches people to give up and leave relationships when they encounter difficulties, instead of seeking to heal, repair, and compromise. It's... sexual consumerism. "If it doesn't work, throw it away." Consumer capitalism teaches us to buy a new product instead of repairing an old broken one, and this attitude now seems to be carried over into human relationships as well. People just don't want to repair anything any more.

I'm sorry did I say "at the first sign of sexual dissatisfaction, run away"? No, I didn't. Couples who don't talk about it are doing it wrong. But when one or both partners cannot be happy compromising, it is, in fact, time to make like a banana. This type of incompatibility and frustration does not create a relationship steeped in healthy feelings.
I know for a fact that I cannot and will not be happy with my partner if we have sex less than once every other day or if they refuse to go above the ol' in-n-out with their attempts to pleasure me. If my partner cannot be happy providing the things I need, then we are incompatible and the relationship will not work.

[Washington Resistance Army]

My jimmies are officially rustled.
Tell me more

You can stop spamming.

[Haktiva]

Sex means being wiling to create children with someone I can fully respect, trust, and care about. I see no point in it otherwise.

[Luremurg]

My jimmies are officially rustled.
Tell me more

You can stop spamming.

I'm not spamming you pig,
I am simply sitting on the side lines.
Quite frankly a bunch of politically orientated people arguing about sex turns me on.

[Alizeria]

People can change. They do change. I've seen it many times.

The biggest problem with the culturally-liberal approach to sex and relationships is that it basically teaches people to give up and leave relationships when they encounter difficulties, instead of seeking to heal, repair, and compromise. It's... sexual consumerism. "If it doesn't work, throw it away." Consumer capitalism teaches us to buy a new product instead of repairing an old broken one, and this attitude now seems to be carried over into human relationships as well. People just don't want to repair anything any more.

I'm sorry did I say "at the first sign of sexual dissatisfaction, run away"? No, I didn't. Couples who don't talk about it are doing it wrong. But when one or both partners cannot be happy compromising, it is, in fact, time to make like a banana. This type of incompatibility and frustration does not create a relationship steeped in healthy feelings.
I know for a fact that I cannot and will not be happy with my partner if we have sex less than once every other day or if they refuse to go above the ol' in-n-out with their attempts to pleasure me. If my partner cannot be happy providing the things I need, then we are incompatible and the relationship will not work.

I second this. One of the reasons I left my last girlfriend (apart from her being a controlling and slightly psychotic bitch) was because we were sexually incompatible.

She was someone with a huge amount of sexual desire, but it was always for boring in/out vanilla sex. I am someone who does not have a huge amount of sexual desire, but in the rare event that the mood does hit it's usually going to be a fetishy occasion.

I know that's more than most people want or need to know about me, but my own experiences are in complete alignment with the point(s) that Stagnant Axon Terminal has raised.

[Saiwania]

If I were you, I'd ask my doctor - a random website isn't that great of a source

A doctor's appointment will cost you $100+ while a website is free. Guess which source I'm going to rely on first?

[Alizeria]

If I were you, I'd ask my doctor - a random website isn't that great of a source

A doctor's appointment will cost you $100+ while a website is free. Guess which source I'm going to rely on first?

Anyway I don't even know Orthelos's doctor!

(Also, $100? I thought $30 was expensive, ouch.)

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

If I were you, I'd ask my doctor - a random website isn't that great of a source

A doctor's appointment will cost you $100+ while a website is free. Guess which source I'm going to rely on first?

You don't have to take a visit to the doctor to get a question answered. There is a growing number of doctors who put out their e-mail for patients to send them questions, and a large number of doctors who spend a lot of off-work time specifically on helping other people online with these same questions.

[Marcurix]

Seeing the arguments over the matter that broke out in the ideal partner thread, I felt it may be necessary to create a topic devoted purely to the personal meaning you attach to sex and sexual interaction in general. To some, it is a purely meaningless act, one that carries no emotional significance and is solely an expression of pleasure. Others may find it to the most intimate acts that lovers can engage in, depicting it as the height of romantic interaction. Some conservative elements look to sexual as something only acceptable for the purpose of reproduction, finding sex for pleasure or closeness to be wrong. Others still may find no attraction to sex at all, and simply see it as a foreign entity they want nothing to do with. What is your personal view on sex? Does it carry emotional weight? When is it acceptable? Please make sure to keep discussion PG13. We are discussing concepts, not giving stories.

Personally, sex is only as deep as my feelings for the person I am engaging in it with. If I don't have strong feelings for you, I can engage in sexual activities rather casually without thinking of it as anything but a pleasurable activity. If I am romantically attracted to someone however, I then become rather reluctant to dive into sex, and place extensive emotional significance upon the act. Similarly, if someone I am romantically involved with had sex with someone else, I really won't feel that strongly about it so long as they inform me. Only if it became meaningful to then would I see any need to discuss it in depth. In many ways, sex is also an act of self expression and therapy to me, offering great personal comfort and support when I may have troubles finding it elsewhere. It is something that I have surprisingly found to be quickly becoming an extremely important part of my life, and something that in a way defines me.

That's pretty much what it is for me, but I find the casual sex to be lackluster after a while and thus prefer the romantic relationship when engaging in such an activity.

[Constantinopolis]

If I were you, I'd ask my doctor - a random website isn't that great of a source

A doctor's appointment will cost you $100+ while a website is free. Guess which source I'm going to rely on first?

You know... on top of all the other reasons why the US health care system sucks, I just realized that it also promotes misinformation by encouraging people to look online for answers instead of seeing a doctor.

[The Flood]

No, the morality of anyone who believes sex is for pleasure rather then love is horrible.

I never said sex wasn't for love, I simply said it was fun. They aren't mutually exclusive, sex results in pleasure for most people.

The pleasure is a side effect, not a purpose.

[The Flood]

Its not hedonism. It's about happiness. A person who has a great amount of desire cannot be satisfied with a person who has none, and a person who has to have their certain fetishes realized in the act is not likely to be satisfied by a person who finds those fetishes disgusting. A person who is sexually unsatisfied often has a great deal of frustration stemming from their inability to relax, and a person who has a frustrated partner often becomes frustrated as well. These are relationships that cannot work, and they either need to be solved in a non-forceful way or the relationship needs to end.

People can change. They do change. I've seen it many times.
The biggest problem with the culturally-liberal approach to sex and relationships is that it basically teaches people to give up and leave relationships when they encounter difficulties, instead of seeking to heal, repair, and compromise. It's... sexual consumerism. "If it doesn't work, throw it away." Consumer capitalism teaches us to buy a new product instead of repairing an old broken one, and this attitude now seems to be carried over into human relationships as well. People just don't want to repair anything any more.

You always have such a good way of putting these things

[Washington Resistance Army]

I never said sex wasn't for love, I simply said it was fun. They aren't mutually exclusive, sex results in pleasure for most people.

The pleasure is a side effect, not a purpose.

Not true at all, plenty of people have sex for pleasure even if they are together and in love.

[The Flood]

Because it is hedonistic and selfish to have sex for pleasure / outside of marriage, and it has the potential to cause dire emotional consequences, spread STDs, or create unwanted pregnancies.

Not having sex has worse emotional consequences than having sex.

Not having sex has no consequences, I can confirm this.

[The Flood]

I'm not interested in it. I've been an asexual ever since I was born. Though this doesn't mean I'm not interested in the opposite sex. It's just I don't have sexual drives. That's what they call "heteroromantic", I think.

This is how I am. I like women, I find women attractive. But if I died a virgin, my only regret would be that I didn't carry on my family name. I couldn't care less about sex.

[New Chilokver]

Not having sex has worse emotional consequences than having sex.

Not having sex has no consequences, I can confirm this.

Actually, if you're a male, and you suffer from a lack of erections, penile shrinking is guaranteed.

[Immoren]

Number between 5 and 7.

[Saiwania]

You know... on top of all the other reasons why the US health care system sucks, I just realized that it also promotes misinformation by encouraging people to look online for answers instead of seeing a doctor.

A doctor could be seen as a middle man, albeit a well educated and expensive one. I'm for any technological change in general that allows people to bypass the middle man and instead go directly to the source to be able to diagnose/treat yourself. If you only go for very specific tests/procedures as opposed to test after test to try to find out what is wrong, you'll still incur substantial cost savings.

It is like what many "never corders" are doing with regards to cable TV, they are not subscribing to paid TV and won't ever intend to, instead relying on services such as Netflix or internet streaming. Millennials and younger will generally feel they don't have the money to foot the bill for a full cable TV package which can be an inconvenience and the streaming video approach is "a la carte" and thus will prove to be the way of the future of media entertainment.

[The Flood]

Not having sex has no consequences, I can confirm this.

Actually, if you're a male, and you suffer from a lack of erections, penile shrinking is guaranteed.

Don't interrupt me boy.