The price of sex

[pendell]

Seen in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/cheap_dates_EnfcHi7NwBAkD3RYMUWv6I)



Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists.

More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men.

...

Sex is so cheap that researchers found a full 30% of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all -- no wooing, dating, goofy text messaging. Nothing. Just sex.

Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same -- one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it). With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.



I'm posting this year to get reactions and to ask our keen cultural observers here if the writer is telling the truth, and if so how it is affecting you.

Ya see, this is unknown territory to me. I'm a 40-year-old married fogey (married 17 years). While both Susan and I grew up in the '80s, long after the 1950s ideal were in the dustbin, she still made it plenty clear that I wasn't going to come near her unless I put a ring on her finger, and that she'd kill me in bloody fashion if she caught me with another woman. If I was lucky.

This understanding has kept me alive and, um, intact for 17 years.

Is that your experience? If not, what are your expectations from a relationship?

And why is it with all this easy stuff lying around, gamers can't get ... ? Is Magic: The Gathering really such a turnoff?

Another question: Is the same true in the LGBT community? Or is this purely a straight phenomenon?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zherog]

I'm a 40-year-old married fogey (married 17 years). While both Susan and I grew up in the '80s..

I don't have an answer to your question, but I found this eerie. I'm 40, married 17 years, and my wife's name is Susan.

[arguskos]

Is Magic: The Gathering really such a turnoff?
I approve of this flavor of humor, good sir. :smallcool:

As for the above, you know, if that's really the case, someone needs to tell my school that. :smallsigh: I feel so desirable now.

[The Succubus]

Oo

I'm 40, married 17 years and my wife's name is Sus-

:smalltongue: Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm actually 29 and suffice to say I was in my late 20s before it was my first time, though not from a lack of trying on my part. The girl I was seeing (and still am! :smallbiggrin:) I had known for several years as a close friend and there was still a large element of romance involved (long walks, flirty emails, cozying up on the sofa together) before we became closer, so to speak. Which is exactly the way I wanted it. I couldn't really say about the price of sex but I put a very high value on romance, far above it.

[Talya]

Is that your experience? If not, what are your expectations from a relationship?

Like you, I'm in my...uh...mid-to-late-30's...and have been married 16 years. So I'm probably the wrong one to ask.



And why is it with all this easy stuff lying around, gamers can't get ... ? Is Magic: The Gathering really such a turnoff?

I'm a "Geek Grrl," so, once again, I'm probably one of the few enablers of gamer sex. ;)



Another question: Is the same true in the LGBT community? Or is this purely a straight phenomenon?

Here we go. I'm in a bit of a nonstandard relationship. I'm bisexual, and when my husband found out, he was rather understanding. I've now been in two long term relationships, with my husband for 16 years and my girlfriend for 10. (Her name is not Susan.) It's a closed relationship, no sleeping around, so this cheap-sex phenomena is not something I experience.

[Mx.Silver]

I'm posting this year to get reactions and to ask our keen cultural observers here if the writer is telling the truth, and if so how it is affecting you.
Ascertaining truth is going to be pretty hard to do given that even the best 'keen cultural observer' is only going to be able to provide anecdotal evidence. It's also rather difficult to critique the study given that the article doesn't point to or name any particular studies we can try and check (sadly not surprising given the mainstream media's record on reporting academic subjects). Largely it seems to be going for sensation - again, par for the course - so a little scepticism wouldn't hurt.

In regards to this:

With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.
I'm rather curious as to why increased gender equality and the contraceptive pill, both of which enable women to be more in control of their sex lives, are seen as 'reducing women's control' in sexual politics. If anything, the statement were largely in control of sexual relationtions in the past would seem to be at odds with much of gender history.

[Haruki-kun]

To be honest, I get the feeling sometimes that these sorts of sex-related articles are grossly exaggerated. I'm a college student and I don't come across empty packs of condoms or socks on doorknobs as often as news and media would have you believe.

[TheSummoner]

I don't have time to read the article now... I plan to later, but I'm short on time at the moment.

Just going off the initial post though, I find the thought depressing... I have a hard enough time finding someone who meets my (admittedly high) standards as it is. I don't want someone who gives it up easily. I don't want to have to worry about the history of every girl I take interest in. From the sounds of things, it's just going to get harder to find someone like that...

... Is it so wrong that my priority isn't sex?

[Telonius]

First reaction: this is for the US only, correct? Seems to me like this would vary, extremely widely, if you took the whole world into account.

Second reaction: When any reporter writes something like:

Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same -- one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it)...

... then I immediately disregard most of what he says about gender, sex, or much of anything else. For a couple reasons. First - as if women were (always and everywhere) the ones who determined the "market" for sex! It varied from place to place, from time to time, and even from situation to situation. But in general, men - particularly wealthy and/or powerful men - were the ones who determined the "market." It wasn't because the girl wouldn't "put out" that you had to get married before sex. It's because of her seventeen cousins with swords or shotguns. And if the guy was powerful enough, or the girl didn't happen to have seventeen cousins with shotguns, marriage didn't matter in the slightest.

Second: an assertion that "men want sex more than women" without any evidence that it's true or discussion about how and why that is. Really? I might be able to buy "men want sex more often than women," but not "men have a greater desire for sex than women," at least not without some sort of justification for the statement.

For my own experience - I might be a bit of an outlier. I was adopted as an infant, and my biological parents had both cheated on their respective spouses. It's just part of my self-image that nothing even close to that is ever going to happen to me. Cheating is entirely out of the question. Has nothing to do with how much or little I love/feel threatened by my wife (or her seventeen cousins); has everything to do with who I am. But I certainly didn't wait until marriage. I didn't expect my (at that point hypothetical) wife to do so either.

As it happened, she did wait for me (though not for our wedding) anyway. Before our wedding, I did talk to her about it; if she wanted to take a break and "try out" some other people, that was fine with me. If she was going to marry me, I wanted it to be a real choice. She decided to stick with me, no more questions asked. We've been married for six years now, with a beautiful two-year-old daughter.

If she ever did cheat on me, I wouldn't hate her for it, any more than I could hate my parents, or myself for existing. But I don't get caught up worrying about it. Better to spend that energy in making the best family I can.

[Ursus the Grim]

This understanding has kept me alive and, um, intact for 17 years.

Is that your experience? If not, what are your expectations from a relationship?

And why is it with all this easy stuff lying around, gamers can't get ... ? Is Magic: The Gathering really such a turnoff?

Another question: Is the same true in the LGBT community? Or is this purely a straight phenomenon?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Hey, American, spent most of my youth in a suburb in New Jersey. I'm just turned 22, engaged for marriage in June, and have been dating my fiancee for four years. She is my first, and my 'first' was in 2008, IIRC. I believe I was 17. Its hard to remember, because there were quite a few fumblings early on, and neither of us really knew what we were doing, and neither of us were looking down. :smalleek:

That's the exception, not the norm. I was acutely aware of the sex life in my high school. There was a thin veneer of romance, but that was all it was, thin. It was more prevalent in some social circles, and by no means was it the same everywhere.

I think, honestly, gamers start off a little outside the social norm. I can tell you what some people in High School were doing late Friday nights. It wasn't meeting up with three other guys and pretending to be an elf. (At least, not until Uni :smallwink:) With certain exceptions, I think many gamers adhere to that old, "White Knight" mentality, as harmful as it may be. I don't know any who seem the type to go on a fling knowing its a fling.

I'm not LGBT myself, but I've got more ears in that community than the straight one. The LGBT community on my campus is a whirlwind of trading partners, sex and drama. I know there are hookups simply for sex's sake in my environment, and people only form attachments afterwards, which causes the drama. Being experimental with sexuality kinda goes hand in hand with being active, I think. You can't sample different sweets if you don't go into the candy shop, you know?

One tangental anecdote

Fiancee's room-mate insists that she can't tell if she clicks with someone if she doesn't make out with them. In fact, she considers make-outs a prelude to dating. Of course, when sober, she made out with her best friend because the girls' boyfriends asked them to for their own sexual gratification. Not necessarily stating there's something wrong with it, but its a stark contrast to how I viewed sex and relationships. My fiancee blames the "MTV Skins" generation.

[Mx.Silver]

I don't want someone who gives it up easily. I don't want to have to worry about the history of every girl I take interest in.
... So don't worry about it? :smallconfused:
No really, if you're looking for a more emotionally connected relationship, why should your partner's sexual history matter as long as that connection's present? Unless the prospect of having sex itself actually poses problems for you, why would any of this be a problem? As long as you make it clear you aren't looking for a pure-sex arrangement you're unlikely to end-up in one, I'd have thought.



From the sounds of things, it's just going to get harder to find someone like that...
Someone like what?




... then I immediately disregard most of what he says about gender, sex, or much of anything else. For a couple reasons. First - as if women were (always and everywhere) the ones who determined the "market" for sex! It varied from place to place, from time to time, and even from situation to situation. But in general, men - particularly wealthy and/or powerful men - were the ones who determined the "market." It wasn't because the girl wouldn't "put out" that you had to get married before sex. It's because of her seventeen cousins with swords or shotguns. And if the guy was powerful enough, or the girl didn't happen to have seventeen cousins with shotguns, marriage didn't matter in the slightest.

Second: an assertion that "men want sex more than women" without any evidence that it's true or discussion about how and why that is. Really? I might be able to buy "men want sex more often than women," but not "men have a greater desire for sex than women," at least not without some sort of justification for the statement.

Well said.

[Kuma Da]

In one flavor or another, this news post has been re-occurring since the possible dawn of time itself. I'm not going to give a yes or no answer to the OP here, since I don't think it's really a yes or no type of question. Is it more socially acceptable in certain circles and in certain ways to have fewer inhibitions? Yes. But is this ushering in the floozipocalypse? No.

There's a bit of a blindspot in the original article. It talks about how much more easily women are having sex. Presumably, if this is straight sex, men are also having it more easily, too. If it's not, that means these figures apply more prominently to the bi/lesbian community. Furthermore, since the research in question was very likely conducted by asking participants questions rather than having sex with them, it's altogether possible that what we're seeing here is an increase in women's willingness to report that they had sex.

While we're on that subject, it's important to note that studying societal views on sex has always run into a very specific problem. Everyone seems to have different ideas of what sex is. There are textbook definitions out there, but they're not actually dominant, and even some of the textbooks disagree.

Lastly, I'd like to call attention to the phrase "Men want sex more than women do." Which is a bald-faced lie.

Yes, there's a history of stigma and condemnation associated with women wanting to have sex. And yes, it's probably the root cause of a lot of inhibition today. No, it doesn't actually reflect an objectively true social fact.

I'm very open to debating this, so if you want to have a go at my logic, then by all means. But it's been my experience that articles like the one posted above have more to do with sensationalism than adequate research.

[Weezer]

Unlike the author of the article I see increased acceptance of female sex a good thing. Despite our current view of the past as a land of faithful marriages and no premarital sex both men and women have always had sex before marriage. The key difference is that now a woman who does this isn't ''ruined'' forever. In fact I would say that our culture needs to become more accepting of female promiscuity, for a woman who sleeps around is still termed a whore, while a man who does the same thing is applauded. We need more gender equality in our sexual relations, not less of it.

This is from the perspective of a male in his early twenties who has had sex with one woman, and only after being in a committed relationship with her for a while, if that makes any difference.

[pendell]

Lots of good stuff here. I should respond later, but thought I'd throw this in as it is tangentially related.

Just took this test at nerd tests (http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nt2.php?score).

Interesting fact:



32.2% of all test takers would choose the Internet over sex, and
26.6% of married test takers prefer the Internet over sex.



Of course, to make sense of the above you have to understand that the question posed was .. "if you had to give up one or the other, which would it be?"

Well, of course. Physical pleasure is all well and good, but if you have to choose one or the other, I'll take the one that gives me books and things to read and work to do. You're asking me to choose between my **** and my mind. And that is no choice at all.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[dehro]

mmmh tough one to answer really... definitely not one I can answer in a line or two.
(well.. one answer would be "I wish!")

the longer answer:
my experience in this particular field is..varied.
My only angle to reply can be a personal one, as I'm not really a big believer of statistics or "revealed truths by experts" in these things.. I firmly believe that people aren't really all that honest with themselves nor with others who ask, when it comes to their "moral compass"..
I'm 33.. and have lived most of my formative and adult life in Italy, minus frequent stays in Holland (in the summer) and 3 interesting years in England..

as a teenager I had sex once.. (well..a little more than that, but that's what it felt like.. a clumsy attempt at getting over a nasty situation by helping each other out in entirely the wrong way, wrong location, wrong everything..followed by years of monastic lifestyle..and some nookie much later.. school was not a happy time for me)
I got a little more action later.. but it was always a matter of putting an effort in and navigating social entanglements and expectations coming with the honest request for..relief, companionship, fun and frollicking.. not to mention the active barriers italian social life puts up against these things..
(for one thing, there are very little "girls nights out" and "boys nights out".. most people go out either with their partner or with friends who are of both sexes and are mostly grouping around one or more couples...not quite the same kind of playing field)
in other words, sex, no matter how casual or oriented to something more serious it may be, was never cheap, never instantly available and was on the whole, sparse and difficult to get..
whilst I may have had my modest share of fun, I was never one of those guys with a new girl every night out..and those of my friends who were "that lucky" were invariably the cool guys, and money, appearances and social status in general would play a part in this. nothing new under the sun, as they say in these parts. of those, some are now married (with varying degrees of happiness, pouches and/or incipient baldness).. some never came out of a ditch during nights they partied a little too hard.
all in all I don't complain.
then I moved to England, and found a completely different attitude, mentality and approach. being a moderate geek, having a hectic work life that was not conducive to social life or opportunities, and being single and carefree, I decided to take the internet option, which in england was/is a hell of a lot more acceptable than it is in italy (where people are rather appropriately convinced that only pervs and total morons resort to the instrument, and only to be lured in by swindlers or professionals)...no, I don't mean cyber-sex..I mean using the net as a means to encounter people
I was in england for 3 rather non-consequential years before moving back to Italy.. and I must say that I reaped some results.. I made some friends that will stay with me forever, despite the distance, and I had some well meant fun with a few more ladies with whom I've lost touch over the years.
in other words..a society that is much more open to responsible adults enjoying each other's company, than what I had experied so far..(or since).. without the stygma of being branded social pariahs or depraved human beings.
this however doesn't mean it was any cheaper or obtainable with any less effort than I would have put in IRL, or than I ever have put in in Italy. the website and forum I would "use" was full of morons of all age and sex, who thought that the simple handing over of a small fee to this website should by rights open the floods of horny single women looking for just them.. and who were surprised that women still wanted to be talked to, charmed, wined and dined or simply made feel wanted.
time, sometimes money (food and fuel aren't free), attention, manners and in general respect and consideration were still essential parts of getting anywhere..at least for me.
there have been 1 or 2 women who would just have jumped at it..but on the whole I was rather put off by them and never let it go anywhere. there have been wild stories (and unverified ones at that) of guys and girls, their drunken nights out and their waking up naked with a stranger in bed...but I've always been more attracted to the discerning woman that has her wits about it and is willing to do the nasty on whatever number date (first, second..) because she feels it's right..not out of peer pressure, drunkeness, poor judgement.
making friends was always more important to me in those 3 years than the simple sexual act..
I like to think that it's no coincidence that some of the best bed partners of those years are still some of my best friends of today..
anyway..sex has yet to become cheaper for me..and this at a time in my life when I'm looking for something more so would probably not take it if it was offered to me for free.
I do realize that my outlook on this situation is not the average one..and that in england most of the better friends I made were divorced women and single mothers..which I suppose is another relevant field of inquiry in this debate..
(teenage mums were something of a culture shock for myself..something that either doesn't exist or is hidden out of sight and tackled much differently in italy).

the gist of my wall of text is that different countries and models of society deal with this in different ways.. I remember going on holiday in Sri Lanka with a (female) friend..and having to explain that despite sharing a room, with separate beds and no sex involved, we were just friends..not related, not married or anything. the moderate shock we caused by this situation was due to local custom dictating that young people were, on the whole, prohibited to go out together (or be alone in private) unless they were at the very least promised to each other in marriage. the article may be interesting, but it doesn't tell the whole story, certainly doesn't speak for the whole world, and probably not even for the whole of the "social milieu" it is focused on. the 2 times I was in New York as a tourist, the closest I got anywhere was exchanging a few kisses with a british tourist...

[Talya]

Thinking about this further, while I've had a pair of stable relationships for 10 years and 16 years respectively, i've been sexually active since I was 14 years old. I haven't had a lot of partners. I'm a romantic at heart and always have been, they were a series of long term relationships (or what passes for long term when you're a young teenager.)

[Sipex]

A lot of my thoughts have already been presented by you guys so I can't really add much except for the following:

Just because you list a disclaimer like 'It might sound sexist' doesn't make it okay nor does it make it 'not sexist'.

[dehro]

But is this ushering in the floozipocalypse? No.

floozipocalypse had me laughing..

[Syka]

Ascertaining truth is going to be pretty hard to do given that even the best 'keen cultural observer' is only going to be able to provide anecdotal evidence. It's also rather difficult to critique the study given that the article doesn't point to or name any particular studies we can try and check (sadly not surprising given the mainstream media's record on reporting academic subjects). Largely it seems to be going for sensation - again, par for the course - so a little scepticism wouldn't hurt.

In regards to this:

I'm rather curious as to why increased gender equality and the contraceptive pill, both of which enable women to be more in control of their sex lives, are seen as 'reducing women's control' in sexual politics. If anything, the statement were largely in control of sexual relationtions in the past would seem to be at odds with much of gender history.

For centuries, the women who just "give up sex" have been seen as making life "harder" on women who don't because men either cheat or don't want to be with those who wait. *eyeroll*


I don't have time to read the article now... I plan to later, but I'm short on time at the moment.

Just going off the initial post though, I find the thought depressing... I have a hard enough time finding someone who meets my (admittedly high) standards as it is. I don't want someone who gives it up easily. I don't want to have to worry about the history of every girl I take interest in. From the sounds of things, it's just going to get harder to find someone like that...

... Is it so wrong that my priority isn't sex?

It isn't wrong your priority isn't sex. And...I'd still worry about one's history. I don't care if my partner has been with 1 or 100 other folks, they are getting their butts tested for STI's. Period.




As for the OP, I don't give it up easily, for health reasons. Previously, it was for some (very legitimate) reasons. I wanted to wait until I was in a long term, stable relationship with someone who had a clean STI test 6 months after their last partner, and after I was at a point in my education where a possible pregnancy would not affect my graduation. So, any guy is going to deal with at least a six month wait. Period.

I know this'll be a turn off to some guys, because I do know folks who will hop in bed the first night. I have no problem with those guys saying "See ya" and no problem with the women who are cool having sex early on. To each their own. Everyone has different requirements for a relationship and me and a guy who wants sex within the first week/month are just not compatible.

As is, my partner was not one who wanted to wait. But he did. He didn't want to get tested. But he did. Our relationship was worth enough to him that those hurdles (not placed haphazardly) were worth it. Part of this, though, is he knew I wasn't using sex as a power play like some many women do. I would never withhold sex until X, Y, or Z (insert doing dishes, getting me jewelry, whatever) happens unless I honest to God did not feel like having sex. He also knows that, God help him if he cheats. There is no coming back from that with me- it's an automatic relationship ender. He has seen how my post-relationship friendships work with a guy who cheats on me.

It's not violent, and it's not angry. It's nothing. No contact, just a complete shutdown*. I do not abide by someone breaking my trust and it would be a huge violation. He is definitely not the type to cheat (as he says- it's hard enough being with one woman :smallwink:), but if I thought he was, we wouldn't be in a relationship. Been there, done that, not messing around anymore.

Said cheating was maybe partly due to lack of sex (we'd been together over 3 years), mostly due to long distance and him having boundary issues with female friends, combined with going away to college. Other guy I dated soooo wanted in my pants. Soon realized it was useless, lol. His attempt to do it via showing my lambskin condoms followed by "I know they don't protect against STD's" was...less than seductive. :smallsigh: The guy was used to getting what he wanted, and to his credit we had been dating about 6 months (non-exclusive, I'm sure he was with other women) by the time he pulled that. The whatever-we-had went into steep decline after that gem.



As for the men want sex more than woman, TECHNICALLY it is true. When you look at distribution curves, ON AVERAGE, you are more likely to find a man who wants sex more than a woman. IN PRACTICE there is a LOAD of overlap and mostly men and women are similar. In my experience, it tends toward the opposite (the women I know having higher or just as high drives as the men), but with women it's not appropriate to talk about. *insert another eye roll*


*When Oz first heart about what happened with my ex and I's post-relationship conversations, he stared at me and went "Wow...remind me to NEVER piss you off." Apparently, not many people are able to cut out someone who they recognize is toxic for them...>>'

[Mando Knight]

Ya see, this is unknown territory to me. I'm a 40-year-old married fogey (married 17 years). While both Susan and I grew up in the '80s, long after the 1950s ideal were in the dustbin, she still made it plenty clear that I wasn't going to come near her unless I put a ring on her finger, and that she'd kill me in bloody fashion if she caught me with another woman. If I was lucky.

This understanding has kept me alive and, um, intact for 17 years.

I was raised by a similar couple (though they're going for 30 years married next spring). And they did a fairly good job of instilling their values into me, so while I recognize that society as a whole has accepted and even embraced the idea of cheap sex, in some ways it's still a rather alien concept to me...

[CoffeeIncluded]

I've never even kissed a guy, and I'm very reserved about my body and future romantic and sexual life, assuming I don't die alone and unloved. Basically, I want a romantic relationship before I want a physical one. Way before a physical one. Part of it may be because of my trust issues. If I'm going to make myself emotionally vulnerable like that, I better trust and love you with my life, and you better do the same in turn.

I consider myself openminded, so I don't judge when my college hallmates make out with people (and more) when they're drunk and the like, but I do wonder why they consider that fun.

[Maxios]

My parents raised me to believe that sex is something that happens between two people who love each other. I believe that. "Cheap" sex is a lot more common nowadays then a few decades ago.
I saw something on the news a few months back about a ten year-old girl getting pregnant. One time at my old elementary, the teachers found two six-graders alone in a classroom. And they definently were not in there because they forgot to grab their backpacks or books.

[TheSummoner]

... So don't worry about it? :smallconfused:
No really, if you're looking for a more emotionally connected relationship, why should your partner's sexual history matter as long as that connection's present? Unless the prospect of having sex itself actually poses problems for you, why would any of this be a problem? As long as you make it clear you aren't looking for a pure-sex arrangement you're unlikely to end-up in one, I'd have thought.

It's a complicated issue and not one I'm sure I'd be comfortable getting into on the internet. Let's just say that not worrying about it is much easier said than done, at least for me anyways. While sex may not be the priority, it is certainly something that I would eventually expect in a serious relationship and something that does matter. If I were to consider getting into a serious relationship with someone (even just to the point that I would consider her my girlfriend rather than just a girl that I've taken on a few dates), then her history would matter to me.

[Syka]

Oh, and from a social psychology perspective (I studied this in college and going on in graduate studies was a possibility), it is pretty true that the price of sex HAS declined.

But not in how easy it is for men to get it. It is in regards to the relative risk associated with sexual activity, IIRC. It used to be a very high cost activity for women, low cost for men. If there is a pregnancy, the men do not face any physical toll. They can, effectively, leave and not even have a financial or emotional toll. For women, they have to carry the fetus for nine months, go through labor (which is incredibly difficult on ones body, even an 'easy' one), and then figure out what to do with the infant. All options (termination, adoption, raising the child) carry an emotional toll, and in at least one case a high financial toll.

The advent of birth control helped women to control when and with whom they have a child in most cases. Termination eliminates, to some degree, the physical toll of carrying and delivering a fetus (but can come with heavy emotional tolls, though not always). Whereas termination used to be incredibly dangerous, with Roe V. Wade in the US, it is far safer and generally does not risk later infertility.

This ability to control and/or terminate a pregnancy, along with the reduced stigmatization of unwed mothers (which still exists, but it's not social suicide anymore) has resulted in a lowered cost of having sex to women. It is, effectively, cheaper.



If anything, I'd say with the ability to have wages garnished and genetic tests done, the cost of sex has risen for men. They just don't always acknowledge that before they have sex. :smallwink:

[H Birchgrove]

Well, if a woman wanted to have sex with me, and for some reason I would know there was no ulterior motive involved (immigration through marriage, getting back at an ex-boyfriend, abusing me in some fashion, whatever), that she only wanted sex and that she for some reason finds me handsome, then why should I complain?

Then again, I see myself as a chivalrous pervert, so I dunno how helpful my comment is.

[Yora]

I don't see the problem here.

Not that I would want to have sex with someone I've just met, and I'm actually not all interested in any relationship that does not have the potential do develop into something long-term or permanent. But if casual sex does something for you? Why not? If adult people who take precautions to prevent infections want to have sex, why not?

And as the title says, there doesn't seem to be any downside to it these days. Pregnancy and diseases can be avoided with extremely high certainty unless you are careless, and socially there's almost no stigma on starting or ending a sexual relationship. Some people might disapprove, but keep their mouths shut, and that's about all the negative consequences you would expect.

[Surrealistik]

Check out this article. Geek takes a different approach to
having sex with a beautiful woman. Check it out.

http://www.suregeek.com/?p=37

Creepy.

Also my personal experience tends to agree with that article; maybe it's something inherent to major liberal, cosmopolitan cities, but I find girls are pretty 'easy' on average (not that there's anything wrong with that; it's exactly how I like them, more fun for everyone really). I can't (and wouldn't care to) imagine what dating was like back in more conservative eras. That isn't to say I'm adverse to long-term relationships, but I can't see myself tied down while I'm in my twenties and in the middle of the one and only sexual peak in my life (unless I meet the elusive 'Mrs. Right'); I'd rather keep my options open, and my experiences interesting, novel, and diverse.

As for those wondering what's fun about free/easy love, it's definitely the emotional highs/euphoria/sensations and catharsis that comes with the activity.

[Joran]

I'm 29, married for 3 years, and have a 1 year old daughter.

This sort of stuff frightens me. Time to stock up on shotguns and research convents.

I'm mostly being facetious.

[Mono Vertigo]

Funnily enough, until rather recently, I was considering sex as the unfortunate price for love. Being asexual, the prospect of intercourse looked rather icky to me, but I was also sure I couldn't find anyone who shared my opinion, male or female. I would have to make that sort of sacrifice so I wouldn't spend the rest of my life alone. Fortunately, I FOUND someone who mostly holds the same opinion, and things got a lot better.
That, and, well, passive peer pressure. Even though I'm not one to follow popular trends and opinions, I did feel crappy at the prospect I could be one of those 1-2% of the population who never had sexual intercourse. At one point, I was almost considering just finding a guy that wouldn't revulse me too much, just do it one and for all, and call it a day. Just so I wouldn't still be a virgin at an age where it is creepy for all parties involved, even if there's no actual sex at that point.
Yeah.
What I hate in this era is being made to feel like I'm less of a human being because I'm not fond of a practice, even if said practice will never actually come in the picture. Sex is the price for a normal life, and not the other way round. :smallfrown::smallfurious:

[pendell]

I'm 29, married for 3 years, and have a 1 year old daughter.

This sort of stuff frightens me. Time to stock up on shotguns and research convents.

I'm mostly being facetious.

Interesting you say that. Tom Clancy and Bill Cosby both observed that daughters were the universe's revenge on fathers for being male. Because they then lived in mortal fear that their girls would meet somebody like THEY were at that age.

Resulting in the application for permission to date my daughter (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/dateapp.htm).



Oh, and from a social psychology perspective (I studied this in college and going on in graduate studies was a possibility), it is pretty true that the price of sex HAS declined.


Interestingly, I saw an article on a similar phenomenon among black widow spiders (http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/08/15/surviving-sex-with-black-widows).



In most animal species, females dictate the course of reproduction, said Johnson. They work hard to produce and safeguard a few eggs, while males generate lots of sperm at little personal cost. That difference in "investment" usually leads males to be promiscuous while females are choosy. But in species like the black widow, the danger of mating is so great for the males that they have to be the choosy ones.


The article then goes on to explain how black widow males are veeery choosy, looking for well-fed mates who aren't likely to leap on them and bite their heads off.

I think the observation has merit: As a rule, the male is much less invested in the outcome than the female is. The threat of death -- and many traditional human cultures punish sexual misconduct with death -- reverses the equation, forcing the male to be selective and choosy about mates rather than simply doing what comes natural, which is sowing seed freely and wildly.

That's a strategy that works well in animals like snakes, but human infants seem to require a lot more care and upbringing. Hence a desire on the part of the female and her family to ensure the male stick around and help raise the child he brought into the world, rather than simply flit on to the next flower.

Hence the traditional demand for long-term commitment and the death penalty for non-compliance.

Modern society moves away from this because birth control and abortion remove some of the natural consequences, allowing people to have sex with less risk of children. When those measures fail, kids grow up in single-parent families. Susan was one of those, and she tells me it was not fun at all.


Respectfully,

Brian P

[Yora]

Also my personal experience tends to agree with that article; maybe it's something inherent to major liberal, cosmopolitan cities, but I find girls are pretty 'easy' on average
Easy come, easy go.

If all I will take away from it is temporary sexual gratification, why should I bother?

[LaZodiac]

Just occured to me that what we call it shouldn't matter. We should call it what it is, for the most part. If you touched a girl under her shirt, say you did. Simple as that.

[dehro]

Interesting you say that. Tom Clancy and Bill Cosby both observed that daughters were the universe's revenge on fathers for being male. Because they then lived in mortal fear that their girls would meet somebody like THEY were at that age.

Resulting in the application for permission to date my daughter (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/dateapp.htm).

Respectfully,

Brian P

funny..but I'm told one should read this decalogus (http://www.smilespedia.com/10-simple-rules-for-dating-my-daughter-2/)prior to filling in that form

[Cristo Meyers]

Resulting in the application for permission to date my daughter (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/dateapp.htm).

Respectfully,

Brian P

*snort*

Filled that out and handed the stupid thing right back to my future father-in-law. He had no idea who he was messing with. :smallamused:

[Surrealistik]

Easy come, easy go.

If all I will take away from it is temporary sexual gratification, why should I bother?

Basically what I said in the last parts of the post you're quoting, plus the novelty (nuanced or otherwise) of a given encounter. If that doesn't appeal to you, to each his (or her) own, but I personally love the sensations of sex and loathe the opportunity cost of a committed long-term relationship with someone who isn't ideal, or at least close.

I suppose it helps that I don't feel the need or compulsion to get involved on any sort of deep emotional level, and recognize casual encounters for what they are; an opportunity to have some carnal, no strings attached fun.

[Coidzor]

*shrug* Just going from high school to college and not having to be the first sexual partner a girl's had (or to fake such for whatever reason) skews most of the anecdotes I have about such things anyway.

It seemed, at least, that there's still some trickiness in girls taking that first step while they're young though, and that once they're more comfortable with their bodies, well, they're more comfortable with their sexual decisions and better able to make 'em.


IResulting in the application for permission to date my daughter (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/dateapp.htm).

Well, that certainly was ahead of its time, what with being worried about... a boy raised by gays or lesbians turning out straight.

Seems almost out of place, really. :smallconfused:

[skywalker]

Is that your experience? If not, what are your expectations from a relationship?

I have very few set expectations. I have a sense about me that things will happen when the time is right for both parties. If a girl is worth it, I'm as comfortable waiting for marriage as I am waking up together after the first date. Being able to compare both (not married, but currently with a waiting girl), I have my opinions about which one works out better, but I'm certainly flexible and willing to try either. They both can work out.


And why is it with all this easy stuff lying around, gamers can't get ... ? Is Magic: The Gathering really such a turnoff?

It's never gotten in my way. I'm not out there every night testing this theory, but I've never been dissatisfied with my amount of activity. In fact a couple of girls have been rather impressed when I explained exactly how my Magic deck works.

[ShortOne]

I'm thinking about a longer post, but for now, I'll respond to these bits.


Men want sex more than women do.

Bull****. As a (genetically and self-identified) female, I'll tell you that's not true at all. Social stigma makes a lot of cis-females think that talking about wanting it, or telling their partner they want it is bad, which is where the stereotype comes from, but it really is only a stereotype.


With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.

Disregarding the blatant typo (:smallfurious:), I'd argue those factors have aided women's ability to get what they want, so to speak (where the wanting is sex). If a woman is on the Pill, she doesn't (if she (for some incomprehensible reason) is not worried about STDs) have to negotiate condom-use, which is a deal-breaker for some people (both women and men). If she's horny and she just wants to get off, she can also watch porn. Overall, this quote just makes no sense.

[Kneenibble]

Meet market looks like an intentional and quite clever pun to me, not a typo.

[ShortOne]

Meet market looks like an intentional and quite clever pun to me, not a typo.

But the point of the article isn't meeting people, it's having sex with them.

[Kneenibble]

That's a kind of meating.

[The Succubus]

It's never gotten in my way. I'm not out there every night testing this theory, but I've never been dissatisfied with my amount of activity. In fact a couple of girls have been rather impressed when I explained exactly how my Magic deck works.

I do hear girls like guys who are good with their hands.

[Telonius]

I'm only going to have a few rules for dating my daughter (by the time she's old enough).

1. Under 14 years old (either of you) = No. "Half your age plus seven" rule applies otherwise.
2. My daughter will be trained in some form of martial art. You do not have to worry about me kicking your ass, she is perfectly capable of doing so herself. Furthermore, her mother is a faster runner than I am.
3. She has condoms in her purse for a reason. That reason is not, "I am easy," it is, "I am not an idiot."
4. I do not care if you are white, black, brown, yellow, or green with purple polka dots. I do not care if you're male, female, transgender, asexual, or alien squid monster. I don't care what your religion is, what your clothes look like, how much (or little) money you or your parents make, how you wear your hair, or what music you like to listen to. I don't even care if you cheer for the Cowboys (though don't expect me to visit you on Sundays if you do). I do care if you treat yourself and my daughter with respect.

[pendell]

alien squid monster.


You've been watching anime hentai, haven't you? :smalltongue:

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[TwoBitWriter]

I always considered myself the exception to the rule regardingthe stereotype of nerdy males. My first time was at 14 and I've had multiple relationships since.

But, I have enough friends all across the gamut, and have been to enough parties, to know that that article is pretty much true.

It's a great time to be alive. :smallcool:

[Eldonauran]

What I hate in this era is being made to feel like I'm less of a human being because I'm not fond of a practice, even if said practice will never actually come in the picture. Sex is the price for a normal life, and not the other way round. :smallfrown::smallfurious:

You aren't alone out there. I'm not too keen on the practice myself but have no reservations against eventually engaging in it, with the right person. I am in no rush and can wait. Should I never find the right person, a celibate life does not scare or intimidate me. I will have more time to spend on more worthwhile persuits.

[Coidzor]

Meet market looks like an intentional and quite clever pun to me, not a typo.

No, it's just the old-fashioned way of saying it, with Meat Market being the intentional pun that took over.

[pendell]

My wife and a single female friend in her late-40s early-50s complain -- at different stages in their life -- that it was very hard to start a relationship with a male because, as a rule, the minute said male realized they would get nowhere in a hurry the male immediately lost interest. They felt like they could only attract a male if they were willing to give something they weren't willing to give.

Is that common? Or have those been interested in forming a romantic relationship first and get to the sex later been able to do so with relative ease?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Manga Maniac]

Sex is so cheap that researchers found a full 30% of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all -- no wooing, dating, goofy text messaging. Nothing. Just sex.
...And I see no problem with that. It's still 70% who are getting into actual relationships anyway.


Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same -- one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it). With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.
They still have the control of choosing not to have sex. Which is about the same amount of control men do. No reason why the control should be tipped in favour of the female persuasion. Honestly, if you have to use "gender equality" as a reason, you probably need to sit down and think about your argument for a few seconds.

Also, your face is sexist and outdated. Oh yeah, I went there.

[Eldan]

Interesting fact: for me it's basically the other way round.

My parents both started before they were 16, they both had several partners, my mother still had other boyfriends while living with my father, and they consider sex normal, normal to talk about and normal to have.

For me? Well, I don't think I'd have a problem with casual sex per se, but I'm in my mid-twenties now and never had any. So, who knows.

[dehro]

My wife and a single female friend in her late-40s early-50s complain -- at different stages in their life -- that it was very hard to start a relationship with a male because, as a rule, the minute said male realized they would get nowhere in a hurry the male immediately lost interest. They felt like they could only attract a male if they were willing to give something they weren't willing to give.

Is that common? Or have those been interested in forming a romantic relationship first and get to the sex later been able to do so with relative ease?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

AFAIK it's common, yes..not overwhelmingly so though..and there are much diverse realities depending on scorse of social factors..a primary one being age..and.. life experience.

[H Birchgrove]

No, it's just the old-fashioned way of saying it, with Meat Market being the intentional pun that took over.

I'm making meet sauce right now. I'll soon get to boil the pasta.

[dehro]

I think the article is nothing really new.. just a guy expressing dismay about the "falling of standards" and other such amenities..looking for something to blame..
I've read the same kind of article back when I was 14 and discovering sex.. back then the blame was put on punk music, drugs and moral laxitude..
today apparently..according to the author, the blame is somehow to be put on gender equality..of which the lack was considered part of the problem back then..

meh..irony?

[Drascin]

... Is it so wrong that my priority isn't sex?

Oh, no, not at all. And you're not alone. Personally, the simile that came to mind when explaining to some friends the other day was, "I "would like" to have sex, yeah, but pretty much in the same way I "would like" to learn to draw". That is, it's something that would be nice and all, but nowhere near the top of the priority pole and I know myself enough to know I'm not going to make any real effort towards it in any case :smalltongue:

[Kuma Da]

I'm only going to have a few rules for dating my daughter (by the time she's old enough).

1. Under 14 years old (either of you) = No. "Half your age plus seven" rule applies otherwise.
2. My daughter will be trained in some form of martial art. You do not have to worry about me kicking your ass, she is perfectly capable of doing so herself. Furthermore, her mother is a faster runner than I am.
3. She has condoms in her purse for a reason. That reason is not, "I am easy," it is, "I am not an idiot."
4. I do not care if you are white, black, brown, yellow, or green with purple polka dots. I do not care if you're male, female, transgender, asexual, or alien squid monster. I don't care what your religion is, what your clothes look like, how much (or little) money you or your parents make, how you wear your hair, or what music you like to listen to. I don't even care if you cheer for the Cowboys (though don't expect me to visit you on Sundays if you do). I do care if you treat yourself and my daughter with respect.

This. This is glorious.

If I ever spawn, I may have to copy-paste these rules. Of course, 'martial arts' may be substitutable for mace or a mace, depending on physical agility and interest in medieval weaponry.

[Seerow]

This. This is glorious.

If I ever spawn, I may have to copy-paste these rules. Of course, 'martial arts' may be substitutable for mace or a mace, depending on physical agility and interest in medieval weaponry.

I see no reason why both would not be an acceptable compromise. Every woman should have some form of medieval weaponry in her purse.

[arguskos]

I see no reason why both would not be an acceptable compromise. Every woman should have some form of medieval weaponry in her purse.
That's how you know you've got a keeper: when you catch a glimpse of a flail cunningly hidden in her purse. :smallcool:

[Kneenibble]

As for me, I plan to tell anyone my daughter(s) brings home -- don't do anything to her that you wouldn't want me to do to you.

[Coidzor]

I'm making meet sauce right now. I'll soon get to boil the pasta.

So now you're sarcastically equating sex and food, eh? Well, you've succeeded in reminding me of George Costanza, I must admit. Though I have no idea why that would be your goal. :smallconfused:

[Eldan]

As for me, I plan to tell anyone my daughter(s) brings home -- don't do anything to her that you wouldn't want me to do to you.

Ewww. There goes the kissing.

[Knaight]

More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men.

And we are off to a bad start already. The term "giving it up" encourages the ridiculous notion that having sex reduced ones value if they are a woman, paints sex while being a woman as a passive action one does for someone else, instead of an active one done at least partially for ones self. Virginity is good, passivity is good, action is for men. Wonderful.


“The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,” said Kathleen Vohs, of the University of Minnesota, who has authored several papers on “sexual economics.” “It might mean buying her a drink or an engagement ring. These behaviors vary in how costly they are to the man, and that is how we quantify the price of sex.”
And we continue on the same. Sex isn't about something done between willing participants, it is payment for a service from a woman to a man. Because that cultural myth is so useful. Oh, and, of course, all sex is between one man and one woman. Are you anything but straight? Then go away. Again, wonderful.


By boiling dating down to an economic model, researchers have found that men are literally getting lots of bang for their buck. Women, meanwhile, are getting very little tat for their . . . well, you get the idea."
Wow. Just wow. Tasteless jokes, and completely ignoring the idea that women might actually enjoy the sex, and view it as a positive. Also, this economic model look suspiciously like a zero sum game as described so far, which is complete bull in emotional relationships, and presumably the same in most positive sexual relationships. One doesn't drain happiness from a friend by hanging out with them, both people benefit from the other. The sheer extent to which the assumption that emotional and sexual relationships are a zero sum game is wrong is astounding.


Sex is so cheap that researchers found a full 30% of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all -- no wooing, dating, goofy text messaging. Nothing. Just sex.
Ignoring the issue of using just one study, the specific language used to get this statistic would be valuable. Also, based on later wording in the test, it appears that "young men" apparently means "men in college".


Men want sex more than women do. It’s a fact that sounds sexist and outdated. But it is a fact all the same -- one that women used for centuries to keep the price of sex high (if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it).
Because, clearly, the whole concept of virginity as value and sex as debasement historically had nothing to do with this. Also, clearly, the concept that not being a virgin reduced the value of women is one women spread to keep the price of sex high. Uh huh. Right.


With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.
Gender Equality: Clearly not fully realized yet.
The Pill: Gives women better control of their reproductive systems. That would be an increase in power.
Women's control of the meet market: I suspect they meant "meat market". Also, these historic times where the price of sex was really high. These would be the same historic times where arranged marriages were the norm. Having someone marry you to someone else is not "control". Moreover, even where arranged marriages weren't, the concept of asking the father of the bride for permission to marry was a big one. That looks like the father has power to me.


As a result, says Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, men are “quicker to have sex in our relationships these days, slower to commitment and just plain pickier.”
Quicker to have sex: Not necessarily relevant.
Slower to commitment: Sounds like "marry later" to me. Considering that the idea of marriage as moral obligation is on the decline (finally), that isn't surprising. Plus, we know women are marrying later, and that whole "after age X, where X is in the early 20s somewhere, women are stuck being widows, and only marriage is an option because work isn't" paradigm is basically dead.
Just plain pickier: I'd love to see some data on this one that doesn't involve earlier marriage due to arranged marriage. Actually, I'd love to see some data on this one at all.


The issue is partly one of supply and demand, and it begins at US colleges, where 57% of students are women. With such an imbalanced sex ratio, women are using hookups to compete with other women for men’s affections. Once they get out of school, the pool of successful, educated men also is imbalanced, and the bed-hopping continues.
Alright then, time to take a look at the assumptions here. Straightness remains one, but the bigger one is that it assumes that the only interaction between people of the opposite genders is romantic, and that affections are romantic and sexual. This may have been the case in 1920. Today though, the whole paradigm of people of your own gender being friends and people of the opposite gender being object of romantic affection is basically gone.


Regnerus likens the price of sex to the housing market. Too many foreclosures in one community, and the price of neighboring homes start to plummet. This is why single women in New York sometimes feel as though sex on the first date is a given: According to the market, it is.
Homes are more interchangeable than people. That is all.


“Every sex act is part of a ‘pricing’ of sex for subsequent relationships,” Regnerus said. “If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future -- that is, committing to marry?”
Marriage. Is. Not. A. Method. To. Get. Sex. One doesn't just marry some person so they can screw them, marriage is about an emotional relationship first and foremost. The whole concept of marriage is as a way to foster a closer relationship with someone one enjoys spending time with. Is sex part of this? Yes, in many cases. But to state that marriage is a price paid for sex requires a level of willful ignorance and misanthropy that makes the rest of this article look well reasoned by comparison.


Did you answer, “Love”? You’re adorable.

“Sexual strategies for making men ‘fall in love’ typically backfire, because men don’t often work like that,” Regnerus says.
Yes, its almost as if love is an emotional connection, not a sexual one. Imagine that. Of course, this conflicts with the whole "marriage is something you pay to get sex" concept above, but internal consistency hasn't been a strong point with this article anyways.


It’s little wonder that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average of 1% each year this past decade -- down to 46% now. Single women have been catching on, but those who don’t discount sex say they can’t seem to get anyone to “pay” their higher price.
Yeah, the reasons for this are pretty much known.
1) The idea of marriage as a moral imperative is on the decline.
2) The financial necessity women have to marry young because they can't work has pretty much dwindled away. That's not to say that marriage has no connections with finance, it obviously does, merely that the marriage as imperative has declined in the financial sphere for women.
3) The idea that one should stay in a sufficiently bad relationship because one is married is going away. Unhappy marriages still exist, yes, but now there is a somewhat socially acceptable way out. As for abusive relationships, the idea that one has to stay in those is basically gone.


As with many other markets, outsourcing and technology have affected the price of sex as well.
It is transaction being discussed here. Transaction without development is a zero sum game, and the notion that sex and romance are zero sum games is dumb. Really dumb.


“If men don’t want to take the time to woo a real woman, they can watch sex acts in high definition with images of women who never say no,” Regnerus says. “If you have a suboptimal date with someone you met online, you’re apt now to log on and see who else is available rather than to have another try at it.”
And back to ignoring the emotional aspects of relationships. The assumption that all relationships involve a man acting upon a women who reacts is also cute. Same sex relationships? Ignored by this article yet again. The possibility that a women might initiate contact? Also absent.


The poor economy is adding to men’s reluctance to commit. Men worry about not being able to provide for a family and about the economic pitfalls of divorce.
This is actually a valid point. Even a stopped clock is right twice per day.


So, what can women do to return the balance of sexual power in their favor? Stop putting out, experts say. If women collectively decided to cross their legs, the price of sex would soar and women would regain control of the market. Like a whoopie cartel.
Yeah, this has been shot down repeatedly. I'm just going to add that, for people who enjoy sex, denying it to themselves always doesn't help them. Its shooting yourself in the foot to try and marry someone with a fetish for feet with holes in them.


Women in less egalitarian countries do tend to restrict sex as a means of keeping the cost high. This makes sense when women have no access to education and employment. But in the US, it would take a major cultural movement for women to convince each other to say no to nookie.
Or this comes back to the whole concept of virginity as ones value as a woman, and the necessity of being valuable for marriage due to a lack of options. Both of which are terrible things.


“Let’s be realistic: It’s not going to happen here,” Regnerus says. “Women don’t really need men and marriage -- economically, socially, and culturally -- like they once did. What I hear in interviews with women is plenty of complaining about men or about the dating scene, but their annoyance is seldom directed at other women.”
Aww, man. Marriage is no longer an imperative, and women are able to marry because they want to now, and not because they have to. What a shame. Boo hoo. Women no longer "need" men, and now they just have to want a relationship with someone. Marriages between people who both want to be in them are such a shame, and we must clearly restore marriages between one person who wants to be in them, and one who has to be so the first person is better off. Battle of the sexes, ahoy!

This article fails at basically everything, at basically every level. Its a thinly disguised complaint at how the paradigm of women needing marriage or being screwed by society is going away. Its targeting women's agency. I say good riddance to that.

Moreover, I say this not as someone who wants to have sex all the time. I say this as an asexual looking in, who really doesn't care about sex at all. I say this as a detached analyst. And the detached analyst clearly says that this is a backlash to a loss of privilege.

[golentan]

As for me, I plan to tell anyone my daughter(s) brings home -- don't do anything to her that you wouldn't want me to do to you.

Permission to date your daughter, sir? I have the trapeze ready if you'd like to test things before her. :smalltongue:

I don't know. In my experience (early 20s in a pretty open country in a pretty open state) sex is on the table in some cases before the first date, and sometimes not at all, and is on a distinct axis from romance. I'd rather go for romance for a variety of reasons, but I also had a friend as a sex partner who was pretty much just a friend (we dated but it was never very serious and we both knew it). I can't really comment on differences with the hetero and homo -sexual communities: while I've dated heterosexual people and the topic has come up, I've never had sexual relations with anyone heteronormative (I wasn't ready at the time).

[YPU]

*Snip*

I don't think I can ad any more to this discussion then this man already has.

[Coidzor]

The whole concept of marriage is as a way to foster a closer relationship with someone one enjoys spending time with.

Point of order, marriage still has something of the old baggage about creating a family unit and fostering the development of the next generation of citizens. Something about property rights too.

[pendell]

Point of order, marriage still has something of the old baggage about creating a family unit and fostering the development of the next generation of citizens. Something about property rights too.

Indeed, you look at our history, and marriage for romantic reasons is uncommon. Up to the 18th century or so "marriage" was an alliance between families and had little to do with romantic love -- that's what mistresses were for. More ancient cultures did the same thing, except they called them 'concubines' instead of 'mistresses' and the relationship with said concubine was formalized.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Knaight]

Indeed, you look at our history, and marriage for romantic reasons is uncommon. Up to the 18th century or so "marriage" was an alliance between families and had little to do with romantic love -- that's what mistresses were for. More ancient cultures did the same thing, except they called them 'concubines' instead of 'mistresses' and the relationship with said concubine was formalized.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

True. Which fits into the whole arranged marriage concept I was discussing earlier, which pretty much shoots down the "women use sex for power" concept by its existence. Moreover, I was discussing modern western marriage as a relationship - which is obviously a simplification, but a far more accurate simplification than "thing traded for sex" is.

[Worira]

Yeah, Knaight pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Many times. With a big hammer. The implication that women can never enjoy sex for its own sake, and instead only use it as a form of currency, is particularly vile.

[pendell]

Yeah, Knaight pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Many times. With a big hammer. The implication that women can never enjoy sex for its own sake, and instead only use it as a form of currency, is particularly vile.

Quite. I think it's fair to point out that sex and marriage are actually gift economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy) rather than market economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy). Sex in a market economy is prostitution -- when there is a specific quid pro quo, sex given in exchange for some other good or service.

While we live in a market economy, there are all kind of other economies that exist alongside it. A family, for instance, is a "gift" economy in that parents typically give their kids something without expecting anything in return. Or in a church or benevolent society, where people pool their resources to help members in financial trouble pull through.

My point is that if the author talks about sex as a market transaction, or some kind of game in which two parties are competing for advantage in a transaction, then the author is missing the fundamental dynamics of why people marry or have sex to begin with.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Eurus]

That's how you know you've got a keeper: when you catch a glimpse of a flail cunningly hidden in her purse. :smallcool:

A properly-designed purse should function as a flail. All those buckles, and enough weight to cripple a mule. :smallamused:

[YPU]

A properly-designed purse should function as a flail. All those buckles, and enough weight to cripple a mule. :smallamused:

Friend of mine got his thumb broken by one of them heavy purses, take heed men!

[dehro]

my daughter shall be raised in such a manner that she will be entirely self sufficient. she will know where to find or how to ask for condoms and medical help, she shall know the difference between somebody who knows what he's doing and somebody who is merely trying to get off, she shall be entirely capable of breaking every little bone not to mention the reputation and self esteem of any guy who might try to wrong her, and she shall learn the wonders of the point and laugh technique, to put guys who think they're god's gift to womanhood in their place.

failing all of the above, she shall have a penis.

[Fera Tian]

my daughter shall be raised in such a manner that she will be entirely self sufficient. she will know where to find or how to ask for condoms and medical help, she shall know the difference between somebody who knows what he's doing and somebody who is merely trying to get off, she shall be entirely capable of breaking every little bone not to mention the reputation and self esteem of any guy who might try to wrong her, and she shall learn the wonders of the point and laugh technique, to put guys who think they're god's gift to womanhood in their place.

failing all of the above, she shall have a penis.

So you're making your daughter a vengeful sociopath? Cool, I guess.

Sex is just the body's way of relieving built up tension/reproducing. Go ahead and group sex and love together if you want to cripple yourself though.

[druid91]

So you're making your daughter a vengeful sociopath? Cool, I guess.

Sex is just the body's way of relieving built up tension/reproducing. Go ahead and group sex and love together if you want to cripple yourself though.

Errr.... The way I relieve built up tension is to play a game, or if I really must do something physical run a couple laps.

Just because there is overlap does not mean that's what it is for.

[dehro]

So you're making your daughter a vengeful sociopath? Cool, I guess.

Sex is just the body's way of relieving built up tension/reproducing. Go ahead and group sex and love together if you want to cripple yourself though.

:smallconfused:??

[Orzel]

I see no reason why both would not be an acceptable compromise. Every woman should have some form of medieval weaponry in her purse.

You say that until IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS!!!
It was a shuriken.
Oh New Yorkers, we so crazy.

[Nix Nihila]

It's a little odd how gleeful some of you are sounding when describing how your children will be able to hospitalize people. :smallconfused:

Anyways, I would echo the sentiments of others about casual sex just being about fun (hopefully for all parties involved). As long as you're safe, there really shouldn't be a problem. If you want to save sexual activities for that special someone, then that's fine too! I really don't see any inherent issue with people becoming more promiscuous.

As a closely related subject I think it's strange how much virginity has been emphasized (either as a good thing or as a bad thing depending on culture, gender, etc.)

[dehro]

It's a little odd how gleeful some of you are sounding when describing how your children will be able to hospitalize people. :smallconfused:


I think I can speak for most of "us" in saying it's all in good fun and does not actually mean I'd put any offspring of mine through a sort of compulsory anti-partner pseudo-military bootcamp..(tho it has a nice ring to it)..

also, just being able to defend oneself effectively doesn't automatically mean one should or will use those tools to go on a partner-crushing rampage..

[AtlanteanTroll]

I don't know if people are having sex sooner in a relationship or not, but I would say people are doing it younger. That has more to do with the age people start dating though, not being a whore.

Male, High School

[Coidzor]

As a closely related subject I think it's strange how much virginity has been emphasized (either as a good thing or as a bad thing depending on culture, gender, etc.)

Maybe we've known about STDs and STIs and VD as a species for longer than we've let on? :smallconfused:

[Kuma Da]

Wordy wordy words.

And thus Knaight wins the forums.

[ShortOne]

/snip

There are no words to describe how much I agree with everything you just said. This is everything I wanted to say but couldn't find the words to. And you said it so eloquently!

Someone, give this person a medal.

[Nix Nihila]

Maybe we've known about STDs and STIs and VD as a species for longer than we've let on? :smallconfused:

I mean in modern culture. Of course there would be an evolutionary advantage to that sort of behavior, but it would be nice if we could get past that.


I think I can speak for most of "us" in saying it's all in good fun and does not actually mean I'd put any offspring of mine through a sort of compulsory anti-partner pseudo-military bootcamp..(tho it has a nice ring to it)..

also, just being able to defend oneself effectively doesn't automatically mean one should or will use those tools to go on a partner-crushing rampage..

Oh, I agree that one should be able to defend themselves, but it seems like it's going a bit too far when people are talking about attacking people just for being unpleasant.

[Coidzor]

I mean in modern culture. Of course there would be an evolutionary advantage to that sort of behavior, but it would be nice if we could get past that.

Probably because most of the world doesn't actually have a modern culture and most of the modern cultures of the world still have a lot of baggage strangling them from pre-modern cultures.

[dehro]

Oh, I agree that one should be able to defend themselves, but it seems like it's going a bit too far when people are talking about attacking people just for being unpleasant.

it would make the world a simpler place to live in:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Nix Nihila]

Probably because most of the world doesn't actually have a modern culture and most of the modern cultures of the world still have a lot of baggage strangling them from pre-modern cultures.

Yes, that's sort of my point. I wish we could get rid of that baggage. I suppose saying it was "strange" wasn't conveying what I was trying to get at.

EDIT: @^ Not for unpleasant people like me. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

I don't think I can ad any more to this discussion then this man already has.


Yeah, Knaight pretty much hit the nail on the head there. Many times. With a big hammer.


And thus Knaight wins the forums.


There are no words to describe how much I agree with everything you just said. This is everything I wanted to say but couldn't find the words to. And you said it so eloquently!

Someone, give this person a medal.

Thanks for the praise everyone. :redface:

[Dvil]

Thanks for the praise everyone. :redface:

Well, it's not undeserved. Some very good points going on there.

[KnightDisciple]

Guess it just depends on your perspective on sex, relationships, etc. as to how you associate such things.

Me? I know I'm worth waiting for, and I know my future wife is worth waiting for, for a large number of reasons.

Any kid who wants to date any of my kid(s) aren't getting by without a good talking-to, either.

Whether I've got a Brother Eye satellite and OMACs at my command by that point is totally not relevant at all, no sir. :smallwink::smallcool:

[Moff Chumley]

It's a little odd how gleeful some of you are sounding when describing how your children will be able to hospitalize people. :smallconfused:

Was wondering the same thing myself. I'd think honesty and self-respect are gonna do your daughter a LOT more good than MMA and some PSYWAR expertise, in the long run...

[Talya]

And we are off to a bad start already. The term "giving it up" encourages the ridiculous notion that having sex reduced ones value if they are a woman, paints sex while being a woman as a passive action one does for someone else, instead of an active one done at least partially for ones self. Virginity is good, passivity is good, action is for men. Wonderful.
**and lots more good stuff**


I like you. Furthermore, I think you'd like a blog post (http://irishjackie.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-am-woman-hear-me-moan.html) I made on a related subject.

[golentan]

I like you. Furthermore, I think you'd like a blog post (http://irishjackie.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-am-woman-hear-me-moan.html) I made on a related subject.

THANK YOU! :smallsigh:

I'm not much of one for trumpeting my masculinity, but it bugs me that people call it into question because I like to cook, or my sexual preferences, and it bugs me that skirts or pants are acceptable for uniforms at work for women but only pants are for men even if would never wear one (I might: I find skirts comfy). I'm perfectly happy and see no conflict between these things and my personal parts, and I wish people would stop implying that I should.[/rant]

That said, I have little to no objection to that male objectification you mentioned.

[Talya]

THANK YOU! :smallsigh:

I'm not much of one for trumpeting my masculinity, but it bugs me that people call it into question because I like to cook, or my sexual preferences, and it bugs me that skirts or pants are acceptable for uniforms at work for women but only pants are for men even if would never wear one (I might: I find skirts comfy). I'm perfectly happy and see no conflict between these things and my personal parts, and I wish people would stop implying that I should.[/rant]

That said, I have little to no objection to that male objectification you mentioned.

Men who can cook are a valuable treasure.

I have nothing against a man in a kilt, either. Though I'm Irish, not Scottish.

[Knaight]

I like you. Furthermore, I think you'd like a blog post (http://irishjackie.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-am-woman-hear-me-moan.html) I made on a related subject.

It was worth reading, certainly. I have a few quibbles with it - I'd argue that what is painted as a differences in thought patterns is more a difference in contextualization, based upon how things are interpreted with gender based cultural mores that remain different. That said, the difficulty in crossing gender roles while male? Yeah, that gets old fast. Sexism, it hurts everyone. Routinely.

As for MacKinnon and Dworkin, I agree entirely. Paglia is much better. Then there is one Melissa McEwan, who you would almost certainly like.


I'm not much of one for trumpeting my masculinity, but it bugs me that people call it into question because I like to cook...
I've found cooking is viewed pretty acceptable. That said, what you cook apparently is limited. I was recently informed, for instance, that "quiche is the most feminine food in existence" after I made some for a party. Not that that stopped the person who said that from eating said quiche.

[Weezer]

THANK YOU! :smallsigh:

I'm not much of one for trumpeting my masculinity, but it bugs me that people call it into question because I like to cook, or my sexual preferences, and it bugs me that skirts or pants are acceptable for uniforms at work for women but only pants are for men even if would never wear one (I might: I find skirts comfy). I'm perfectly happy and see no conflict between these things and my personal parts, and I wish people would stop implying that I should.[/rant]

That said, I have little to no objection to that male objectification you mentioned.

I get this a lot. I love to cook, to knit and have experimented with wearing my girlfriends clothing before. Because if this I've gotten a bunch of "are you really straight" questions/looks. It's incredibly irritating.

[TechnoScrabble]

Yeah, it always bugs me that people question my MANLINESS :P due to my love of food and crafts and my lack of a sex drive. I have nerve damage and my brain reacts differently to hormones than it should, so I never really cared about it at all.

Also, it's not a skirt, it's a kilt, and I'm wearing it because redheads look badarse in them!

[DeadManSleeping]

Maybe it's just because I live in a college area, but I have never run into anyone who has expressed that my cooking ability in any way makes me appear less masculine. In fact, most guys I know are as good at or better at cooking than their female significant others.

Anyway, I'm all for gender equality, but it stands as a fact that if an average woman goes into a bar and demands sex from the first man she desires, she'll almost certainly get sex, whereas if an average man goes into a bar and demands sex from the first woman he desires, he will almost certainly get hurt. In addition, women are currently far more able to use sex as a method of control than men are. And, if I had to guess, men are far more likely to use control as a means of getting sex (possibly because they don't have aforementioned bar option).

I'm not saying ladies don't have libidos. They most certainly do. But sexual expression varies greatly between the sexes, no matter how you slice it.

That said, the original article is still pretty ridiculous.

[Talya]

I've found cooking is viewed pretty acceptable. That said, what you cook apparently is limited. I was recently informed, for instance, that "quiche is the most feminine food in existence" after I made some for a party. Not that that stopped the person who said that from eating said quiche.

Back when I played WoW, in general chat over Dalaran one day I heard the following ...

"I believe it was Gene Simmons who once said 'The most masculine thing a man can do is get in touch with his feminine side.' Either that or it was Richard Simmons, and I suppose that distinction would matter. Nevermind."

(Turns out, it was Gene Simmons who said that. What he failed to quote was the next sentence: "My feminine side is Paul Stanley.")

[Surrealistik]

Anyway, I'm all for gender equality, but it stands as a fact that if an average woman goes into a bar and demands sex from the first man she desires, she'll almost certainly get sex, whereas if an average man goes into a bar and demands sex from the first woman he desires, he will almost certainly get hurt. In addition, women are currently far more able to use sex as a method of control than men are. And, if I had to guess, men are far more likely to use control as a means of getting sex (possibly because they don't have aforementioned bar option).

I'm not saying ladies don't have libidos. They most certainly do. But sexual expression varies greatly between the sexes, no matter how you slice it.

Agree; anecdotally, it's simply true.

[Talya]

It is difficult to deny there are differences in the ways that men and women tend to think as an average. There are always exceptions -- men who think in very feminine ways, and women who think in very masculine ways. But overall, yes, men and women have some serious differences in our mental and emotional approaches to various things. Some of those differences will be learned, but many will be physiological -- part of our brain chemistry or biology or whatever. This is not a problem, nor does it indicate an inequality. Different does not mean superior or inferior. It means different. Accepting those differences is not a sign of sexism.

Then again, it's hard to tell which elements are physiological and which are learned behavior.

[Knaight]

Anyway, I'm all for gender equality, but it stands as a fact that if an average woman goes into a bar and demands sex from the first man she desires, she'll almost certainly get sex, whereas if an average man goes into a bar and demands sex from the first woman he desires, he will almost certainly get hurt.

[Trigger Warning: Discussion of rape]
This is an exaggeration, and as always this is cultural. The whole "value in virginity" concept is well and alive today, though declining, and its something one puts up with if female. Similarly, the whole "having sex makes you a man, do lots of it" is a concept one puts up with if male. That alone is enough to cause that behavior, but there is also the small matter of rape. Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/6 of women in the western world are raped, and a far higher number deal with low level sexual harassment with some frequency. This is the backdrop against which strangers asking for sex exists, and the common perception is that this sort of stuff is done by strangers. Men, by contrast, have the privilege to look at isolated instances of sexual harassment as isolated instances, and suffer rape at a much lower rate (1/20). Its still an incredibly high rate, and victim blaming is even more common if a male is the victim (along with such reprehensible bull as people insisting that men can't be raped if said rape victims so much as say they are :smallfurious:), but its much lower, and less of a threat within the culture. As such, the "this is a potential rapist" warning doesn't trigger if sex is demanded.

Have I mentioned how little respect I have for the way western culture treats gender and sex recently? Because its stuff like the article at the beginning, the situation above, the situation described Tayla's blog post, so on and so forth that show just how unworthy of respect it is.

[Orzel]

Heh, I got my masculinity questioned once for liking candy (I can't like chocolate now?) and many times for being critical about spice choices in food and overall food criticism. "Always with the comments" or "Next time you cook" they say before or after.

As for my possible children, I'm not going crazy over it. If they inherit my weirdness magnetism, I wont be able to prepare them for any of it anyway. In my case, there was always a price to be paid on my side.

[Talya]

Have I mentioned how little respect I have for the way western culture treats gender and sex recently? Because its stuff like the article at the beginning, the situation above, the situation described Tayla's blog post, so on and so forth that show just how unworthy of respect it is.

While I don't disagree, per se (and can't get into the details of that without treading on some forbidden subjects around here), I have to argue that we are hardly the worst --or even in the worse half-- of cultures, when it comes to the issue you are describing.

[Knaight]

While I don't disagree, per se (and can't get into the details of that without treading on some forbidden subjects around here), I have to argue that we are hardly the worst --or even in the lower half-- of societies when it comes to the issue you are describing.

I don't think we are anywhere near the worst. Its merely that its just taken as truth that most non-western societies are terrible about it (which they are), and that western societies totally have their act together (which they don't). There's not much point in highlighting the obvious. As for forbidden subjects, yeah. It would be hard to get much further than surface level without diving headlong into both religion and politics in a big way.


Heh, I got my masculinity questioned once for liking candy (I can't like chocolate now?) and many times for being critical about spice choices in food and overall food criticism. "Always with the comments" or "Next time you cook" they say before or after.
I hate the candy one. That's up there with "you're too old for hot chocolate", which I saw a few times in high school, and persists to this day.

[Talya]

I don't think we are anywhere near the worst. Its merely that its just taken as truth that most non-western societies are terrible about it (which they are), and that western societies totally have their act together (which they don't). There's not much point in highlighting the obvious. As for forbidden subjects, yeah. It would be hard to get much further than surface level without diving headlong into both religion and politics in a big way.

We are, once again, on the same page, then.

[Coidzor]

Ahh, the past two-odd centuries. Some pretty wild times.


I hate the candy one. That's up there with "you're too old for hot chocolate", which I saw a few times in high school, and persists to this day.

This is one of the most pernicious forms of wrong-thinking I've ever encountered. :smallfurious:

[Chess435]

While I don't disagree, per se (and can't get into the details of that without treading on some forbidden subjects around here), I have to argue that we are hardly the worst --or even in the worse half-- of cultures, when it comes to the issue you are describing.

Is there anywhere else you guys would care to continue this little chat, or shall we keep it here?

You know what, never mind. I think I'll go back to lurking....

[Cristo Meyers]

I like you. Furthermore, I think you'd like a blog post (http://irishjackie.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-am-woman-hear-me-moan.html) I made on a related subject.

Things like this are the reason I always look when I see your name...

I long ago gave up any attempt to live up to any kind of masculine idea. There's just way too much baggage and double-standards to want to put up with that crap and the people that are going to judge me based on that kind of criterion aren't the people I give a damn about impressing anyway.

[Coidzor]

Isn't there only really the one criterion (with lots of itty-bitty suicide and depression inducing parts) that exists for someone not trying to be an outdated model of business dinosaur or go into politics or make a career out of womanizing after about the age of 25 anyway?

And almost completely defanged if one isn't intending to be a husband and a father anyway?

[Dr. Roboto]

First of all, I loved the conclusion of your blog post. I would've been in knitter if it hadn't been for this sexist society. :smalltongue:


[Acknowledging the differences between sexes] is not a problem, nor does it indicate an inequality. Different does not mean superior or inferior. It means different. Accepting those differences is not a sign of sexism.
True, but assuming them is. I'm male; if your logic consists of "He is male, therefore he wants sex," then your reasoning is tainted with sexism. That reasoning is present in the blog post.

If I were to smack a guy's ass at work, I guarantee you he's going to appreciate it, rather than report me for harassment.

...men like being sex objects.
Stereotypically, yes. On average? Maybe. But take it from my first-hand experience; that doesn't apply to me, and most men that I know. I feel uncomfortable being sexual harassed just like most people.


Then again, it's hard to tell which elements are physiological and which are learned behavior.
This I most definitely agree with, but to a further extent; plenty of people, of both genders, seem to only do things because it's expected of them. Men being forward, women being passive, etc.

In conclusion; blog post has a good point, but gets there in a well-meaning but frankly insulting way. A mention of "on average" or "most men that I know" would really soften the blow.

[DeadManSleeping]

Religion and politics aside, I'm pretty sure there are still places in the world that go by the philosophy "it's not rape if she wasn't a virgin when it happened" or "it's not rape if you're married", and other such patently horrid things.

And you can switch out "demand" for "ask suavely" and still get the same result. They've actually done studies on it.

In fact, here is an investigation of one such study (caveat: they were studying college students on college campuses. Not necessarily a perfect representation of the entire Western world) http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

[Coidzor]

First of all, I loved the conclusion of your blog post. I would've been in knitter if it hadn't been for this sexist society. :smalltongue:

That reminds me, I need to start working on this desire to make costumes.

[Surrealistik]

Things like this are the reason I always look when I see your name...

Eh, I found them to be fairly standard observations, but that said, at this point I don't think there's very much about gender relations that is particularly revelatory.

[Nix Nihila]

First of all, I loved the conclusion of your blog post. I would've been in knitter if it hadn't been for this sexist society. :smalltongue:


True, but assuming them is. I'm male; if your logic consists of "He is male, therefore he wants sex," then your reasoning is tainted with sexism. That reasoning is present in the blog post.


Stereotypically, yes. On average? Maybe. But take it from my first-hand experience; that doesn't apply to me, and most men that I know. I feel uncomfortable being sexual harassed just like most people.


This I most definitely agree with, but to a further extent; plenty of people, of both genders, seem to only do things because it's expected of them. Men being forward, women being passive, etc.

In conclusion; blog post has a good point, but gets there in a well-meaning but frankly insulting way. A mention of "on average" or "most men that I know" would really soften the blow.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I thought as well. I think it can be quite harmful to make assumptions like that. I would suggest that the reason most men wouldn't report an incident like that would be that it would feel emasculating.

[shadow_archmagi]

words words words


words words words

I always like it when other people say what I'm pretty sure, in retrospect, I was thinking, but couldn't have put words to at the time.

[Syka]

Re: why have casual sex? Because sex is fun. Lotsa fun. Well, it can be anyway. If one is not in a relationship and does not intend to be in a relationship, they should still be able to have said fun if they want to.


Guess it just depends on your perspective on sex, relationships, etc. as to how you associate such things.

Me? I know I'm worth waiting for, and I know my future wife is worth waiting for, for a large number of reasons.

Any kid who wants to date any of my kid(s) aren't getting by without a good talking-to, either.

Whether I've got a Brother Eye satellite and OMACs at my command by that point is totally not relevant at all, no sir. :smallwink::smallcool:

I am glad I waited for my partner. I am also glad that he did not wait for me. There were extenuating issues, and I have no doubt our previous experiences were of benefit in dealing with said issues.

Also, how would it be different if she had been in long term relationships without sex? I can pretty well say that my relationship with Ex was no less important/impactful despite a distinct lack of sex. If anything, my previous relationship impacted me far more than Oz's previous short term partners had all together.

Plus, I kinda look at it this way- he had the physical and I had the emotional experiences. Between the two of us we had all the bases covered. ;)



Maybe it's just because I live in a college area, but I have never run into anyone who has expressed that my cooking ability in any way makes me appear less masculine. In fact, most guys I know are as good at or better at cooking than their female significant others.

Anyway, I'm all for gender equality, but it stands as a fact that if an average woman goes into a bar and demands sex from the first man she desires, she'll almost certainly get sex, whereas if an average man goes into a bar and demands sex from the first woman he desires, he will almost certainly get hurt. In addition, women are currently far more able to use sex as a method of control than men are. And, if I had to guess, men are far more likely to use control as a means of getting sex (possibly because they don't have aforementioned bar option).

I'm not saying ladies don't have libidos. They most certainly do. But sexual expression varies greatly between the sexes, no matter how you slice it.

That said, the original article is still pretty ridiculous.

Pretty much all of this. Oz is a maniac in the kitchen, I love it! And many a study have shown the proposition success rate is far higher for women propositioner than men.


EDIT: Knight, I didn't mean that to come across accusatory. Just honestly curious about if a history of long term relationships would have a similar reaction from you as a history of sexual partners. It was also to show why someone might not care. It's totally understandable if you do. :)

[Coidzor]

Speaking of studies. Is anyone else inappropriately amused at the idea of actually hearing someone say "Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

The thought alone of a real person saying that just makes me want to giggle.

[Syka]

Speaking of studies. Is anyone else inappropriately amused at the idea of actually hearing someone say "Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

The thought alone of a real person saying that just makes me want to giggle.

I might giggle 'cause it sounds funny, but (as a woman), I'd respond far more positively to that then "Do you want to go back to my place?" or "Do you want to have sex?"


They still wouldn't be in my pants, but they wouldn't get a disgusted look. Depending on the delivery, they might even get a date/number.

[druid91]

I hate the candy one. That's up there with "you're too old for hot chocolate", which I saw a few times in high school, and persists to this day.

The solution, or my solution anyway, is to laugh like a madman.

For several minutes.

Then stop and continue drinking your hot chocolate ignoring the crazy people trying to act mature by depriving themselves.

[Kuma Da]

Speaking of studies. Is anyone else inappropriately amused at the idea of actually hearing someone say "Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

The thought alone of a real person saying that just makes me want to giggle.

It is so very, very formal. I think it could probably be pulled off, though. You'd just need a tux and a British accent.

edit: actually, I think the tux/british accent combo will let most people get away with most things in the states.

[Knaight]

The solution, or my solution anyway, is to laugh like a madman.

For several minutes.

Then stop and continue drinking your hot chocolate ignoring the crazy people trying to act mature by depriving themselves.

Sounds good to me. I prefer the blank stare, but only because my blank stare is much better than my derisive laugh.

[Dacia Brabant]

Other posters have done the heavy lifting on this, especially Knaight, but there is at least one thing that bears mentioning:

lol New York Post. :smalltongue:

[DeadManSleeping]

Speaking of studies. Is anyone else inappropriately amused at the idea of actually hearing someone say "Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

The thought alone of a real person saying that just makes me want to giggle.


I might giggle 'cause it sounds funny, but (as a woman), I'd respond far more positively to that then "Do you want to go back to my place?" or "Do you want to have sex?"


They still wouldn't be in my pants, but they wouldn't get a disgusted look. Depending on the delivery, they might even get a date/number.

I believe the appropriate phrasing is "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?". Double points if you sing it. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

It is so very, very formal. I think it could probably be pulled off, though. You'd just need a tux and a British accent.

edit: actually, I think the tux/british accent combo will let most people get away with most things in the states.

The bit that makes me a bad person is probably where I'm imagining Isaiah Mustafa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE)saying it and then it getting remixed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOMkbZw2XI).

I am reprehensible. :smallfrown:

[AtlanteanTroll]

I believe the appropriate phrasing is "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?". Double points if you sing it. :smalltongue:

Unless they know French. Then you'll be slapped.

[DeadManSleeping]

Unless they know French. Then you'll be slapped.

I am aware. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn4mBHJ6W7g&feature=player_detailpage#t=153s) :smallamused:

[Trog]

Article:

Men want sex because they are horny
Women give out sex because they want what men can provide them with in return.
Women should stop putting out to get more of what they want out of men.

Me:
*snrk* When was this written, the 1950's? Give me a break. Women are as horny as men and want sex for the same reasons men do - pleasure.

[KnightDisciple]

I am glad I waited for my partner. I am also glad that he did not wait for me. There were extenuating issues, and I have no doubt our previous experiences were of benefit in dealing with said issues.

Also, how would it be different if she had been in long term relationships without sex? I can pretty well say that my relationship with Ex was no less important/impactful despite a distinct lack of sex. If anything, my previous relationship impacted me far more than Oz's previous short term partners had all together.

Plus, I kinda look at it this way- he had the physical and I had the emotional experiences. Between the two of us we had all the bases covered. ;)As far as "how would it be different", it's because I believe sex is a pretty big step in a relationship. Due to what I believe (on several levels, really), that's a step I don't want to take, and think it's only fair that I expect the same.

As far as experience...eh. Practice makes perfect, I figure. If we both go in with no experience, we build the experience together, which to me seems like it would create a deeper bond.



EDIT: Knight, I didn't mean that to come across accusatory. Just honestly curious about if a history of long term relationships would have a similar reaction from you as a history of sexual partners. It was also to show why someone might not care. It's totally understandable if you do. :)
I didn't think you were accusatory. :smallsmile:

I guess it depends on the circumstances of "a history of long term relationships". If she had a history of dating someone for, let's say, 4 years (which isn't huge, but since I'm not even 30 yet is no small span of time), then breaking them off...I probably would be less likely to want to date her. It would make me wonder if there was actually a chance for things to work out. This more applies if it's a repeat history; if someone had 1 longer-term relationship, and it didn't work out, that's one thing. A half-dozen relationships is a pattern I'd be wary of. And if the other person did the breaking, or, you know, they died, that's also a different factor.

Again, to me and my beliefs, sex is a large step in a relationship. Within the framework I use to view the world, it is an inherently non-casual act. I would feel like it was cheapened if I tried to make it something casual. So instead, I hold it back for a very specific time. If that means I end up never having sex, well, that's the way it goes. Life goes unexpected places sometimes.

EDIT: Incidentally, count me as a guy who would very much object to any coworker, male or female, slapping my butt or otherwise harassing me. Part of it is my strong personal bubble, but part of it is general principle.

[Syka]

Would it really be casual if you are with a long term partner, though?

Don't get me wrong, I take sex seriously. I had reservations about the fact that Oz did not seem to take it as seriously, but not that he'd had sex prior to our relationship. It was mostly a case of him behaving in a not so constructive manner, recognizing such, and maturing. Not too mention, even though the relationships were short lived- he never had a one night stand, and never had sex outside the bounds of a relationship. That showed me more than simply "he's had sex with others".

I just don't quite understand why sex/no-sex is important on it's own without context. Like, what if you met a girl who was not a virgin but all her partners had been long term relationships (2+ years)?

Just as context of the end of relationships matters, shouldn't the context in which your prospective partner had been with previous partners matter more than the mere fact there are previous partners?



And I can tell you from experience, the bond I have with my partner is not cheapened in anyway for us having had previous experiences. Every relationship is different, and every person is different. It's going to be a process of growth whether it's your first and hundredth partner


Disclaimer: I use partner to refer to both sexual and romantic partner, oftentimes both. I am also not trying to imply you are wrong or should change your views or be with someone you do not feel is compatible. I just like playing devils advocate and discussing stuff like this. :) Sexual mores are a very interesting topic of conversation that doesn't happen very often IRL, at least not in a respectful, non-moralizing setting.

[Kneenibble]

May I pose a tangential question that this thread has inspired?

Why are the 1950s the de facto scapegoat for sexual repression and outdated gender roles? I mean specifically. Surely they weren't any more saturated than the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and 1910s with ideas about sex and gender that have changed.

[KnightDisciple]

Would it really be casual if you are with a long term partner, though?

Don't get me wrong, I take sex seriously. I had reservations about the fact that Oz did not seem to take it as seriously, but not that he'd had sex prior to our relationship. It was mostly a case of him behaving in a not so constructive manner, recognizing such, and maturing. Not too mention, even though the relationships were short lived- he never had a one night stand, and never had sex outside the bounds of a relationship. That showed me more than simply "he's had sex with others".

I just don't quite understand why sex/no-sex is important on it's own without context. Like, what if you met a girl who was not a virgin but all her partners had been long term relationships (2+ years)?

Just as context of the end of relationships matters, shouldn't the context in which your prospective partner had been with previous partners matter more than the mere fact there are previous partners?

And I can tell you from experience, the bond I have with my partner is not cheapened in anyway for us having had previous experiences. Every relationship is different, and every person is different. It's going to be a process of growth whether it's your first and hundredth partner


Disclaimer: I use partner to refer to both sexual and romantic partner, oftentimes both. I am also not trying to imply you are wrong or should change your views or be with someone you do not feel is compatible. I just like playing devils advocate and discussing stuff like this. :) Sexual mores are a very interesting topic of conversation that doesn't happen very often IRL, at least not in a respectful, non-moralizing setting.
I believe that sex has a very specific purpose and role (not "just to make babies"); my belief is that it is part of the marriage covenant, and is inextricably tied into said bond.

Much of this is bound up in my larger belief system, which I'm trying to use delicately due to board rules. :smallsmile: Perhaps it makes me a minority on a forum on the internet, but hey, them's the apples. :smallwink:

[Trobby]

Seeing Kneenibble post in this particular topic made me stop and look at what he had to say, because it's this topic, and it's Kneenibble.

Looking at his post I find that, surprisingly enough, I think I have an answer to the question he poses.

The 1950's saw the birth of a new type of complacency. In decades prior, women fought for the right to participate in government, and to participate in the work force. In decades after, there were radical cultural revolutions going on across America.

But the 1950's in particular spawned a particular type of complacency. That of the American Housewife. The woman who trains herself to be a good cook, a seamstress, and a caretaker. Who can have a "small" job and a "small" social life, as long as it doesn't interfere with "the man's world".

And to this day, women see that as an ideal life. They visualize it as the epitome of what they want, and want nothing more than to see their own daughters grow up to be the same type of woman.

True things were much worse for women in the past, but it is the only decade within the last century that spawned a regressive moment in women's rights, rather than a progressive one. Even after the cultural revolution, there was a gradual move for women to seek out more independent jobs and lifestyles, and even though a "housemom" still existed in the late-20th century, it wasn't quite ever so idealized as it was during the 1950's.


On the subject of waiting for marriage...I can't really weigh in on this, as it is a spiritual question that I don't really know the answer to myself. I have been waiting, but I honestly don't know if it is because I want to wait, or if it is because it is expected of me. So I can't really say how I feel on the matter personally.

[Trekkin]

Article:

Men want sex because they are horny
Women give out sex because they want what men can provide them with in return.
Women should stop putting out to get more of what they want out of men.

Me:
*snrk* When was this written, the 1950's? Give me a break. Women are as horny as men and want sex for the same reasons men do - pleasure.

I got the same bullet points out of the article, but my conclusion was not one of anachronism, but of a certain investiture in the side effects of such a system. As long as sex is perceived as a bargaining chip, suggestions may be made as to how best to use it in exchange for something else, or how to most cheaply acquire it, and articles get written by people "in tune with the 18-25 demographic" and published in magazines purchased by people convinced they've got a source of power to exploit.

It didn't even read like an article on "cheap sex", to me. It read as a negative commentary on changes in relationships wrought by greater use of the Internet, especially towards the end. I've read the same thing about the job market: global connectivity has doomed us all, for whatever reason. It just seemed like it was written by someone operating under the last century's paradigm and interpreting change as degradation without considering it in context. I'll refrain from speculating on what this trend may eventually evolve into, but I don't think that's the way to read this, even if the data presented are assumed to be valid.

From personal experience...I'm used to a social circle where the idea of sex having a price, or more specifically the price of sex being used to exploit libido for tangible gain, is regarded as unusual at best. I'm not saying it should or should not be, only that it's not necessarily the downfall of the relationship as we know it.

[Knaight]

As far as "how would it be different", it's because I believe sex is a pretty big step in a relationship. Due to what I believe (on several levels, really), that's a step I don't want to take, and think it's only fair that I expect the same.

Why is it only fair that you expect the same? There's no reason for your views on sex to be applicable to anyone who isn't you. If you don't want to take it, then don't take it. And if a different view is a deal breaker in a relationship with someone, so be it. That doesn't make your views universally applicable for everyone.

[KnightDisciple]

Why is it only fair that you expect the same? There's no reason for your views on sex to be applicable to anyone who isn't you. If you don't want to take it, then don't take it. And if a different view is a deal breaker in a relationship with someone, so be it. That doesn't make your views universally applicable for everyone.
I'm...not trying to force them on people? Putting aside whether I think such things are universal or not, I tried very hard not to make my posts in this thread anything except "this is how I'm going to approach it in my life". Did I somehow fail in that? :smallconfused:

I mean, all things considered, anyone I would be dating would have the same view of things. So what you're bringing up is essentially a non-issue. :smallconfused:

[Strawberries]

I didn't read all five pages, but this, I have to answer:




But the 1950's in particular spawned a particular type of complacency. That of the American Housewife. The woman who trains herself to be a good cook, a seamstress, and a caretaker. Who can have a "small" job and a "small" social life, as long as it doesn't interfere with "the man's world".

And to this day, women see that as an ideal life. They visualize it as the epitome of what they want, and want nothing more than to see their own daughters grow up to be the same type of woman.

Wait...we do? Really?? :smalleek:

I can most emphatically assure you that most of us don't. We see that scenario in our worst nightmares, not our dreams. Where did you get the idea that it was what women were aspiring to? :smalleek:

From my experience, women want to work/graduate, have careers and full-time jobs as much as men do. And it isn't something related to my generation, it's there since at least the 60s. I know my mum would yell at me if I said "Mum, I want to be like a housewife from the '50s". Knowing her, she'll probably say "Well, then what the hell did I make you study for? And what about all the battles my generation did for equal right? Have your boyfriend stay home if you want someone to look after the family!"

About the article itself


Article:

Men want sex because they are horny
Women give out sex because they want what men can provide them with in return.
Women should stop putting out to get more of what they want out of men.

Me:
*snrk* When was this written, the 1950's? Give me a break. Women are as horny as men and want sex for the same reasons men do - pleasure.

Yeah, that, pretty much.

EDIT: My personal experience? I waited a bit (not till marriage, but a bit), but that was certainly NOT because I was setting a price. I waited till I felt comfortable enough having sex, and that varies from person to person, from a few minutes to a few years. Seriously, when I read things like that article, I don't know if laugh or be offended. I usually laugh, it's better for my liver. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

May I pose a tangential question that this thread has inspired?

Why are the 1950s the de facto scapegoat for sexual repression and outdated gender roles? I mean specifically. Surely they weren't any more saturated than the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and 1910s with ideas about sex and gender that have changed.

Because it just has a certain ring to it and no one can really identify the Victorians enough to vehemently hate them, whereas the 1950s has a face we can readily apply our hate to, given that our adult generation still has some parents alive that contributed to it.

edit: Usual, as far as I can figure it, anyway, disclaimers apply, of course.

[Sholos]

[Trigger Warning: Discussion of rape]
Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/6 of women in the western world are raped, and a far higher number deal with low level sexual harassment with some frequency.

Okay, I have to ask. What definition of "rape" are you using here? 1 out of 4 seems really high...

[Seerow]

Okay, I have to ask. What definition of "rape" are you using here? 1 out of 4 seems really high...

Having sex before turning 18 is technically rape in many places in the US, so there you go.

[Derjuin]

Knaight/Talya pretty much summed up everything I would have to say about this - the article got worse and worse each time I re-read it, trying to make sure they weren't actually saying what they were saying, and it only revealed more and more flaws and just how terribly wrong the whole thing was. :yuk:



Wait...we do? Really?? :smalleek:

I can most emphatically assure you that most of us don't. We see that scenario in our worst nightmares, not our dreams. Where did you get the idea that it was what women were aspiring to? :smalleek:

From my experience, women want to work/graduate, have careers and full-time jobs as much as men do. And it isn't something related to my generation, it's there since at least the 60s.

Also pretty much this x88,888,888. I don't want to be someone's trophy wife that sits around in the background (besides being horrible, it's also boring). I want to do something with my life, even if it's just "have fun", and that 1950s housewife idea is soooooooo far from "ideal" for me it's not even funny.

[Keld Denar]

Dang, I'm a bit late to the party. So, my input. A lot of my friends lately are women in their early to mid 30s (despite that I'm a man in my mid-late 20s). In casual conversation with a few of them, I've learned that most of them are interested in sex on a 1st or 2nd date. The two main reasons behind this being 1) they actually like sex, and want the pleasure of getting it on just as much as the guy does, and 2) guys do stupid crap for sex. Getting it out of the way, so to speak, allows them to get a better idea of what the guy is like when he's not trying to get some play, and if they are interested in keeping that guy long term. Guys who lie and manipulate will often keep a charade going for several dates leading to higher emotional investment in a guy who might just leave after sex. After sleeping with a guy, especially a few times, his "real" personality shows through, and if THAT guy is the guy she wants to be with, then she'll start building emotional attachment. I've talked to 5-6 of my friends who are female, seperately and in a group setting, and most of them agree with this.

I slept with my current GF after our 2nd "date", after meeting at an event and then going snowboarding together once. She tells me that if wouldn't have made a move, I probably would have only gotten maybe one more chance. Now we're crazy in love and have been for months.

Then again, I do live in Seattle, the 2nd most promiscuous city in the US (next to Portland, OR) according to OKCupid...

[Mx.Silver]

As for MacKinnon and Dworkin, I agree entirely.
Yeah, they're a pair of arses and it's baffling they're taken as seriously as they are. I mean, their rape definition business alone is mad enough.

[Knaight]

Okay, I have to ask. What definition of "rape" are you using here? 1 out of 4 seems really high...

Sex performed on someone without their consent, or with their consent when they don't have the ability to give it. And no, being asleep is not the same thing as giving consent. Being incredibly drunk qualifies as not having the ability to give it. Being under 18 and significantly younger than your partner (what is usually labeled as pedophilia, and usually technically isn't) qualifies as not having the ability to give it (obviously, a 17 year old and 16 year old having consensual sex doesn't). And that's about it.

[Feytalist]

...A lot of my friends lately are women in their early to mid 30s (despite that I'm a man in my mid-late 20s). In casual conversation with a few of them, I've learned that most of them are interested in sex on a 1st or 2nd date. The two main reasons behind this being 1) they actually like sex, and want the pleasure of getting it on just as much as the guy does, and 2) guys do stupid crap for sex. Getting it out of the way, so to speak, allows them to get a better idea of what the guy is like when he's not trying to get some play, and if they are interested in keeping that guy long term. Guys who lie and manipulate will often keep a charade going for several dates leading to higher emotional investment in a guy who might just leave after sex. After sleeping with a guy, especially a few times, his "real" personality shows through, and if THAT guy is the guy she wants to be with, then she'll start building emotional attachment. I've talked to 5-6 of my friends who are female, seperately and in a group setting, and most of them agree with this...

This is the first I've ever heard of something like this. I must admit to feeling some incredulity when reading this. I've never come across anyone who had these opinions. Although I realise it might have something to do with cultural differences.

I'm also a bit late to the discussion. I saw it when logging off yesterday, but thought about posting when my thoughts were in order. Who knew a discussion about sex would be this popular? Heh.

Among my friends there are quite a few guys who do the whole casual sex routine. Some of them have managed to find stable girlfriends though this, and another one... I hesitate to say he "corrected his immoral ways", but that's the way he describes it, so whatever. As for myself, sex could never be casual. In fact, even with someone who I fully intend to pursue a romantic relationship with, I would wait a significant period of time, simply to make sure we have the required connection. I would also rather have a partner who felt the same way. I honestly see no inherent harm in either outlook, though.

As to the article, I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who would liken sex to an economic model. I also dislike the idea of quantifying sex, but I suppose it could be a valid research subject. In my mind, the very idea of sex having a "value" that can increase or decease is... well, is "abhorrent" too strong a word?

I might be wrong, though. I frequently am, in these matters.

[Katana_Geldar]

You haven't had sex, have you? :smallwink:

While I don't view sex as casual, it is pleasurable and I don't blame people for seeking it for these very reason. Up until the 70's various societal groups purposely made us fear and dread sex as some sort of necessary requirement to having children, particularly women. Some still do.

[The Succubus]

You haven't had sex, have you? :smallwink:

While I don't view sex as casual, it is pleasurable and I don't blame people for seeking it for these very reason. Up until the 70's various societal groups purposely made us fear and dread sex as some sort of necessary requirement to having children, particularly women. Some still do.

It's weird how something can be so terrifying and unsettling and yet occupy a position in the top 3 for "Most pleasurable thing a human can do".

It also makes for really interesting discussions as well. :smallsmile:

[Ceric]

Okay, I have to ask. What definition of "rape" are you using here? 1 out of 4 seems really high...

Unfortunately sounds about right to me. The number my college gave was 1/5. I think that doesn't even include sexual assault, but I can't remember.

[Katana_Geldar]

It's weird how something can be so terrifying and unsettling and yet occupy a position in the top 3 for "Most pleasurable thing a human can do".

It also makes for really interesting discussions as well. :smallsmile:

Yeah, well, think of all those Stop Having Fun Guys there are in the world.

[Coidzor]

It's weird how something can be so terrifying and unsettling and yet occupy a position in the top 3 for "Most pleasurable thing a human can do".

It also makes for really interesting discussions as well. :smallsmile:

Also weird how wildly divergent any given human's definition of the word terrifying can be.

[Feytalist]

You haven't had sex, have you? :smallwink:

While I don't view sex as casual, it is pleasurable and I don't blame people for seeking it for these very reason. Up until the 70's various societal groups purposely made us fear and dread sex as some sort of necessary requirement to having children, particularly women. Some still do.

Wait. What? I assume you're talking to me.

Perhaps I should have mentioned this. My girlfriend and I have been together for just over three years. We waited almost nine months before having sex for the first time. I still think it was a good decision.

I perhaps also didn't make my post clear enough. I have nothing against casual sex. Of course it's pleasurable. It's just something that I personally won't ever do. Not without changing my personality drastically at any rate. I personally also don't hold to the ideas that Keld mentioned. But to the women who do, more power to them.

The opinions expressed were simply my own, and not any I would force on anyone else. Not even my partners. And you can be sure I speak from a platform of experience, otherwise I would not have spoken at all.

[Knaight]

As to the article, I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who would liken sex to an economic model. I also dislike the idea of quantifying sex, but I suppose it could be a valid research subject. In my mind, the very idea of sex having a "value" that can increase or decease is... well, is "abhorrent" too strong a word?

Its the wrong economic model regardless. Static, zero sum market economy? No. At the very least, parallels to technological or cultural development and growth could have been drawn.

[H Birchgrove]

So now you're sarcastically equating sex and food, eh? Well, you've succeeded in reminding me of George Costanza, I must admit. Though I have no idea why that would be your goal. :smallconfused:

Hehe. :belkar:

Actually, I was doing Bolognese sauce, and all I wanted with that post was to make a bad pun. :smalltongue:

Why were you reminded of George Costanza? (Long time since I followed Seinfeld.) :smallconfused:


May I pose a tangential question that this thread has inspired?

Why are the 1950s the de facto scapegoat for sexual repression and outdated gender roles? I mean specifically. Surely they weren't any more saturated than the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and 1910s with ideas about sex and gender that have changed.

Others have explained why especially the 50's have become a scapegoat; let me explain why the other decades you mentioned aren't:

10's: The Great War; women has to work in factories, at farms, in shops etc to replace the men who fought (and often died) at the trenches, in the (now) Polish forests, on the seas, in the air etc. In UK, women got the right to vote as a result after the war.

20's: Also known as the Roaring Twenties. Relative new freedom to women (and men), including new fashion, new haircuts etc.

30's: Depression. You were happy if you could get work, and you would be happy if your wife could get work.

40's: World War Two. Again, women have to do "men's work". Or even fight along with men in the guerillas and militias against the Axis. In France, women finally gets the right to vote after the end of WWII.

As for the 50's, families (at least in USA) could now afford having only one parent working. In a way, that was a type of freedom, or would be if women had been allowed to work in factories etc if they wanted to.

[Dacia Brabant]

With the 1950s there's also the whole thing with the American GIs coming back home after and expecting to be the man of the house like their fathers and grandfathers had been. Major media reinforced that notion through the advent of the television, creating the TV housewife.

This after American women had done their part to win the war as much as the fighting men themselves--you need soldiers to do the fighting obviously, but you also need to totally mobilize your society's production to win at modern warfare (which has been the case in all U.S. mobilizations from the Civil War through WW2).

I firmly believe that the women of the WW2 generation encouraged their daughters to pursue liberty in the 1960s and '70s more often than not, since it was an extension of what they had fought for.

[ShortOne]

[Trigger Warning: Discussion of rape]
This is an exaggeration, and as always this is cultural. The whole "value in virginity" concept is well and alive today, though declining, and its something one puts up with if female. Similarly, the whole "having sex makes you a man, do lots of it" is a concept one puts up with if male. That alone is enough to cause that behavior, but there is also the small matter of rape. Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/6 of women in the western world are raped, and a far higher number deal with low level sexual harassment with some frequency. This is the backdrop against which strangers asking for sex exists, and the common perception is that this sort of stuff is done by strangers. Men, by contrast, have the privilege to look at isolated instances of sexual harassment as isolated instances, and suffer rape at a much lower rate (1/20). Its still an incredibly high rate, and victim blaming is even more common if a male is the victim (along with such reprehensible bull as people insisting that men can't be raped if said rape victims so much as say they are :smallfurious:), but its much lower, and less of a threat within the culture. As such, the "this is a potential rapist" warning doesn't trigger if sex is demanded.

Have I mentioned how little respect I have for the way western culture treats gender and sex recently? Because its stuff like the article at the beginning, the situation above, the situation described Tayla's blog post, so on and so forth that show just how unworthy of respect it is.

Bolded the important bit, spoilered for the trigger.

Trigger warnings: rape and abuse
That's only because men report it at a much lower rate, which is because of the masculinity-dominated western point-of-view. If a man gets raped and seeks help from someone/somewhere not a helpline, they'll get scoffed at. Who gets raped a woman? Clearly someone less manly and therefore less good. Same with abuse. :smallfurious:


Then again, I do live in Seattle, the 2nd most promiscuous city in the US (next to Portland, OR) according to OKCupid...

<3 OK Cupid stats.


In general: I once read an article on a teenage feminist site by a college-aged feminist who really wanted to become a housewife. What did our mothers fight for, if not the freedom to choose to be /anything/, including a housewife?

[pendell]

May I pose a tangential question that this thread has inspired?

Why are the 1950s the de facto scapegoat for sexual repression and outdated gender roles? I mean specifically. Surely they weren't any more saturated than the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and 1910s with ideas about sex and gender that have changed.

Actually, the 1920s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper) were a period of sexual experimentation. The 1940s were a period defined by war and a great deal of dislocation. Women working in factories , men fighting wars , society turned upside down. It wasn't until the 1950s that things settled to anything like 'peace time' here in the US.

The 1950s saw the development of suburbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbia#Suburbia) -- 1950 was the first year more Americans lived in the suburbs than anywhere else. And it is also the foundation years in which the previous generation decided on the gender roles they would have.

You see, my understanding is that gender roles meant something very different in the 1910s and before that. Back then, as a rule, people's business was also their home. You worked in a farm. Or you worked as a blacksmith or a printer or what not, like Ben Franklin, the shop being located downstairs from your living quarters.

Unless you were very wealthy, there wasn't anything like the division of labor that happened in the 1950s. As a rule, a family business was literally a family business, and everyone chipped in as their talents allowed. If you were physically strong, you did the heavy lifting. If you had your letters and mathematics, you balanced the books.

It's only at the time of the industrial revolution and, later, the 1950s in America, when work becomes specialized -- people no longer work directly out of their homes. Instead, people go away to work and come home. This led to the development of the 'housewife (http://www.colchsfc.ac.uk/sociology/documents/development_of_the_housewife_role.pdf). The expectation was that the man would go to work and when he came home his wife would have seen to the house while he was gone.



This was called the cult of domesticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Domesticity). And as you can see, it was developed by women as an ideology to meet the changing conditions of the world they lived in.

As you can also see in the wiki article, the idea took massive hits in the early 20th century during the time of fighting for women's right to vote and in the 1920s, but returned full force with the advent of suburbia in the 1950s. Even our TV shows -- the Jetsons, Leave it to Beaver, et al -- show this 'idyllic' life of a family specialized with male as wage-earner and woman as home-provider.

The article tells us that TV is to blame. I do not think so. I think TV people show what their audiences want to see. I therefore -- without any proof whatsoever -- trace the return of the 'cult of domesticity' to two things --

1) Suburbia and the suburban lifestyle at the time pushed towards this division of labor.

2) Having survived depression and global war, the people of the 1950s were no longer interested in social experimentation. They had caught the latest iteration of the American dream (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/02/the-death-of-the-american-dream-i/), in which a single family has a home of their own and raises children in protected suburbs, rather than having to scratch as they had during the Depression.

Part 2 (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/03/the-death-of-the-american-dream-ii/) of the article elaborates on the suburban life style , and the changes it created.

This, then, is why the 1950s are the years everyone blames. Because it's the last time any living people can remember when the cult of domesticity held sway. Also, because it was the only time when American society resembled modern society in which a comparison would be at all useful. 'Traditional family values' groups can still agitate for a return to the 1950s , because it was a suburban America and we still mostly live in the suburbs, so the model is still technically plausible. There is absolutely no way we could ever return to the America of the 1800s , not unless society was completely and utterly destroyed to the point that the suburban model was utterly impossible. At the present time, it is not.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Scarlet Knight]

Wait...we do? Really?? :smalleek:

I can most emphatically assure you that most of us don't. We see that scenario in our worst nightmares, not our dreams. Where did you get the idea that it was what women were aspiring to? :smalleek:

From my experience, women want to work/graduate, have careers and full-time jobs as much as men do. And it isn't something related to my generation, it's there since at least the 60s. I know my mum would yell at me if I said "Mum, I want to be like a housewife from the '50s". Knowing her, she'll probably say "Well, then what the hell did I make you study for? And what about all the battles my generation did for equal right? Have your boyfriend stay home if you want someone to look after the family!"


I cannot speak for all women, however, in my experience, women who try to have careers and have the men take care of the family end up very sad. It is why many subcultures in the US do not marry at all; if the man cannot be the breadwinner, he will not be worth his keep.

Women often do not wish to be housewives because they do not wish to be dependant on men. I want my daughters to be independent for this reason; but once they find a man they CAN depend on, and the children appear, they are often happier being the nurturer of the family.

[Scarlet Knight]

Have I mentioned how little respect I have for the way western culture treats gender and sex recently? Because its stuff like the article at the beginning, the situation above, the situation described Tayla's blog post, so on and so forth that show just how unworthy of respect it is.

I'm sorry, is there anywhere in the world that treats women better than in Western Culture?

The burka & honor killings of the mid east? The "kitchen fire" divorces of the subcontinent? The infanticide of baby girls in the far east?

The forbiding of education or driving or even walking alone?

Western society may not be perfect, but are western women flocking elsewhere that I don't know about?

[pendell]

I'm sorry, is there anywhere in the would that treats women better than in Western Culture?

The burka & honor killings of the mid east? The "kitchen fire" divorces of the subcontinent? The infanticide of baby girls in the far east?

The forbiding of education or driving or even walking alone?

Western society may not be perfect, but are western women flocking elsewhere that I don't know about?

Call me silly, but I don't aspire to be the best of a bad lot -- I aspire to be the best I can be . Why ask less from my own culture?

I'm not a woman, but given the choice between being a 1950's housewife and being prevented by law from driving in another culture, I'd choose C) none of the above. "Choose me because I'm not as big a loser as everyone else" is not a winning strategy in romance OR in civilization.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Syka]

I'm with pendell, seriously. We may be the best, but I hear so. many. people (usually men) say that the work is done, what more do we want?

Just like with racism, the work is. not. done.

What do I want? I want equal pay with men when I do the same job with the same qualifications, not get paid less because I was born with a uterus*. I want to not be worried about walking down a street in broad day light because I face the very real threat of harassment. I want to not be called a whore or slut for enjoying sex or a prude or frigid for not having sex on a man's schedule. I don't want people to assume I'm a poor little girl whose just going along with her boyfriends desire to not get married**.

Yes, I'm not getting stoned and I'm not forced to wear a headscarf or niqab*** and I don't HAVE to be a housewife****. But that doesn't mean our society treats women as well as men, and it doesn't mean we don't still have things to work on. I know men and women are different, but that does not excuse how we are still treated.



Knight, I understand where you are coming from. :) I guess my life experiences have me feeling a bit different. For me, Oz and I are- for all intents and purposes- married. There is literally no difference in our relationship than there is between my sister and BIL who have been together just as long as us, except for a marriage license. To our families and friends, we are life partners and many of them call him my husband (and some think we are already married before we correct them, lol). Meanwhile, I look at my friends. Of those who are married, about 50% are divorced. One friend is on his second, and a number of those divorces happened within a year or two of the marriage- making my current relationship longer than the entirety of those relationships. A legal marriage just doesn't mean as much to me as the acknowledgement to friends and family and God that he is my partner and I am his.

Sex was a huge step for me, but it signaled that he is the one I am going to spend my life with, barring extenuating circumstances. We don't intend to get married any time soon, but it's not due to lack of commitment. I understand how others would signify that commitment with marriage beforehand, even if I didn't personally.




*Actual argument used by one of my friends: basically, since I have a uterus and can bear children, I'm more of a threat to leave a job and make my employers training of me worthless. Despite the fact that it's far more likely Oz would be staying home with any children since I have the education and eventually stable career that would support us.

**A good 80-90% of folks I let know we aren't getting married anytime soon either A. give me a pitying look or B. want to 'talk' to Oz. *eyeroll* Half of those folks don't even believe me when I tell them it was an honest to God mutual decision.

***I am appalled at legislation in other countries restricting the niqab- not on security grounds while traveling/in high security situations-in everyday life in the name of "gender equality". In an effort to avoid politics, I'll just say women should be given a choice, to wear or not wear a head covering as they see fit.

****As with the above, I love that I have a choice. I want either Oz or myself to be a stay at home parents if/when we have kids. I'm not fussed which one, as long as the other is able to support our family.

[THAC0]

I cannot speak for all women, however, in my experience, women who try to have careers and have the men take care of the family end up very sad.

That's not necessarily because women want to be housewives, though. It's because society views housework as a woman's job, no matter if she's working or not or if her husband is working or not. If the house is a bit dirty, it's generally thought to be the woman's fault, even if she's working and he isn't.

Even though we've come a long way as far as women working outside the home, the home and child-rearing tasks have remained very much on the woman's shoulders rather than being equitably split between the couple. This can lead to additional stress on the relationship, when dad comes home from work and puts his feet up watching tv while waiting for dinner to appear on the table, while mom comes home from work and is juggling kids and cooking and cleaning.

[pendell]

@Syka: A lawyer might very well argue you and Oz are married, in what is called common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage), also known as "sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute."

My uncle lived with the same woman for 40 years, raised kids with her, never slept with anyone else, but they never exchanged vows. *I* say they were married, even if it was not formalized via law or church ceremony.

Someone may object ... "but without a formal commitment, couldn't he walk out whenever he wanted to"? And how is that different from a formal marriage in the world of no fault divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fault_divorce)?

To my mind, marriage is first and foremost a commitment to each other, one that both parties will keep. The rest of it -- legal issues, dresses, ceremonies, and what not -- are all icing on top of the cake of a promise between two people to become one, to watch each other's back and to make a life together.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Cristo Meyers]

**A good 80-90% of folks I let know we aren't getting married anytime soon either A. give me a pitying look or B. want to 'talk' to Oz. *eyeroll* Half of those folks don't even believe me when I tell them it was an honest to God mutual decision.


Sounds remarkably similar to responses I get when I tell family that my wife and I don't plan to have children...



That's not necessarily because women want to be housewives, though. It's because society views housework as a woman's job, no matter if she's working or not or if her husband is working or not. If the house is a bit dirty, it's generally thought to be the woman's fault, even if she's working and he isn't.

Even though we've come a long way as far as women working outside the home, the home and child-rearing tasks have remained very much on the woman's shoulders rather than being equitably split between the couple. This can lead to additional stress on the relationship, when dad comes home from work and puts his feet up watching tv while waiting for dinner to appear on the table, while mom comes home from work and is juggling kids and cooking and cleaning.

And probably exacerbated even further from adding a whole new set of expectations on the wife due to her being a "career woman."

[Frozen_Feet]

All I know is, it ain't low enough if I ain't getting any! :smalltongue:

Sorry. Just had to crack that joke.

[Scarlet Knight]

Ok, if you compare Western culture's treatment of women vs the ideal, I agree , we are far from it. The same with racism, poverty, violence , etc.

All I wish is respect for coming the farthest toward equality in the world. That is something to be proud of.

[Kuma Da]

I'm sorry, is there anywhere in the would that treats women better than in Western Culture?

The burka & honor killings of the mid east? The "kitchen fire" divorces of the subcontinent? The infanticide of baby girls in the far east?

The forbiding of education or driving or even walking alone?

Western society may not be perfect, but are western women flocking elsewhere that I don't know about?

Okay, I'm gonna respond to this one delicately, as it is an ideological landmine waiting to go off.

My background is very whitebread american northeast suburbia, but I have traveled around a little bit. Spent some time is Australia and Canada, and lived a year in Japan. My experience has been thus: America exists in a kind of media bubble. I have previously called it the BS-o-sphere. For a lot of us, big chunks of the outside world might as well have Here Be The Dragons written over them.

Yes, there are certainly cultures I have no problem having problems with. The ones with strict, authoritarian rulership are just about universally worse on gender equality than the ones with more participatory governments.

However, being better than--say--Somalia does not make us good.

While I was staying in Japan, I shared a dorm with a good cross-section of the global student population. Russia, China, Indonesia, South Korea, England, Germany, America, Africa, New Zealand, Belgium, and France were all represented. I spent a year with these people, and did not hear any stories of heavy repression....except from some of the americans. My suspicions was--and still is--that social freedom has a lot more to do with income bracket than country of origin. Money is freedom and power, which is why people want it so much. Paper in and of itself isn't terribly appealing. And yes, there are places where all the money in the world won't shield you from the social taboo of being a woman with power, but some of them are in the west, too.

I'd like to make a note at this point that I have issues with the concept of The West. I think it's pretty disingenuous (and not just because everywhere is west of everywhere since we live on a freaking globe.) It's a little like the concept of White, which used to be far more exclusive than it is. We all know that America is the west, and so are France and Spain and England to the east of us. Is Ireland Western? Go back 90 years, and you might get a no. South America isn't western, but it's connected to the west by a tricky little thread of land and hey, wasn't it colonized by Spain, which is a western country? What about Mexico, for that matter. It's sharing direct continental space with us, like China is with Russia and Russia is with Europe. Japan's certainly to the east, right by Russia and north of Australia, which is near a whole mess of islands that we might be tempted to call eastern but obviously isn't eastern because it was colonized by the brits much like how Spain colonized South America, thereby making it...oh. Well, maybe not then. So, Australia could be eastern. We all agree China is as east as you can get, being west of London and all. Maybe it's just much easier to describe western in terms of places Rome conquered. Like England and Spain and France, but not North America and Canada. And didn't they have such a critical silk trade with China that its interruption sometimes played hell with their politics?

My point being: before we get into pointing fingers, we should do some fairly extensive self-analysis, and make sure our fingers are pointing the right way.

[Mx.Silver]

All I wish is respect for coming the farthest toward equality in the world. That is something to be proud of.

Leaving aside the rather questionable logic of being granted respect for being born in a particular region at a particular time, who exactly is the 'we' here? Besides the difficulties in determining which cultures count as being 'western', even under strict definitions 'western culture' is hardly what you'd call a monolith, various countries (and regions within countries) can have markedly different attitudes.

Regardless, I don't think 'western culture' is anywhere near far enough along the egalitarian road for us to start patting ourselves on the back, or start claiming superiority. Not when you start factoring-in sexualities and especially not when accounting for the physically handicapped and the mentally ill. This is also assuming that 'not being overly discriminatory' isn't enough of a basic moral obligation to render feeling prideful about it rather pointless (most people don't take pride in not assaulting others, for example).

Of course, if the goal by 'getting respect' here is to use something as a way to show that 'us' are better than 'them' (whoever that may be) than maybe some of these wouldn't matter as much. Then again, adopting such a tactic is hardly an example of combatting prejudice, now is it? :smalltongue:

[NOhara24]

Seen in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/cheap_dates_EnfcHi7NwBAkD3RYMUWv6I)




I'm posting this year to get reactions and to ask our keen cultural observers here if the writer is telling the truth, and if so how it is affecting you.

Is that your experience? If not, what are your expectations from a relationship?

And why is it with all this easy stuff lying around, gamers can't get ... ? Is Magic: The Gathering really such a turnoff?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Originally I wrote a book in response to the OP's post, but I decided to strip it down.

Yes, that is my experience. The article is not entirely inaccurate, while the 25% figure is largely impossible to verify, I do think that it would be higher if everyone questioned was entirely honest.

Gamers value their own hobbies more than they do the opposite sex.(not saying it's a bad thing.) That's really what it boils down to. Because of that, they don't put any of their efforts toward their appearance, or anything else required to "get any of the easy stuff laying around."

[Telonius]

@Syka: A lawyer might very well argue you and Oz are married, in what is called common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage), also known as "sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute."

My uncle lived with the same woman for 40 years, raised kids with her, never slept with anyone else, but they never exchanged vows. *I* say they were married, even if it was not formalized via law or church ceremony.

Someone may object ... "but without a formal commitment, couldn't he walk out whenever he wanted to"? And how is that different from a formal marriage in the world of no fault divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fault_divorce)?

To my mind, marriage is first and foremost a commitment to each other, one that both parties will keep. The rest of it -- legal issues, dresses, ceremonies, and what not -- are all icing on top of the cake of a promise between two people to become one, to watch each other's back and to make a life together.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That's about where I am on it. It's almost like marriage has two faces to it. The most important part of marriage, like the most important part of family, is defined by love and nothing else. IMO, the law merely recognizes and grants rights and responsibilities to something that already exists.

[pendell]

Responding to Nohara24, whose post I read before it was trimmed:

I have a rule NEVER to flame people who are telling me the truth as they see it, especially when I've asked for it.

Instead, I'll thank you for your honesty.

I think the 'save it for marriage' crowd agrees with you on this bit --



50% of marriages in the USA today, fail. (My parents included.) The idea of entering a ceremony with someone who you're supposed to spend the rest of your life with, while leaving something as big as sex entirely unexplored until you've said "Well, here's to the rest of our lives." is quite naive to me.


... the solution they -- all right , we, since I'm a fan of marriage -- is to get to know each other as people before making the Big Step. I had a textbook called Too Close Too Soon (http://www.amazon.com/Too-Close-Soon-Heartache-Premature/dp/0785264744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317151027&sr=8-1) which recommended getting to know each other for 3-6 months as friends before starting to explore intimacy and romance. The idea being to let the hormonal infatuation drain and take a cold, hard look at the person before you found yourself in a situation you might regret.

Because, the way I see it , from a purely medical perspective once you've had sex with someone you can't undo it. For the rest of your life, for example, when donating blood, you're going to be asked questions about your previous history and whether you're really, really sure your partner wasn't HIV-infected or what not. And the best time to find that out, of course, is before you've taken the step.

The important thing , they stress, is to work out whether you're an emotional, mental, and spiritual match for each other before you tie a physical knot with a person that could potentially have all kinds of consequences. And it's a decision not best made in the heat of passion.

If you're a match for each other in other ways, as a rule the physical mechanics of getting the bits together can be worked out. If you're not a match, there's a limit to how long Great Sex can be the sole basis of a relationship.

However, there is an exception to the above rule, which I have seen and would be remiss to mention: It's a very good idea to find out if your prospective partner has any history of abuse. A person who has been badly mistreated by the opposite sex can sometimes find it VERY hard to give that kind of physical intimacy again. It can make things ... awkward.

As to the rest of your post -- as to what the twenty-something femme expects -- well, I'm an old married dog and I'll defer to the actual females here :). I've been out of the game too long for my expertise to be current.

I suspect, though, that courtesy and mutual respect still go a long way towards a long-term relationship.

ETA: My wife and I met on Dec 18, 1993 and were married Feb 1, 1994, having a whirlwind courtship of six weeks. Are we glad we got married? Yes. Do we both wish we'd spent a lot more time getting to know each other first? Heck yes .
Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Somebloke]

For what my ten cents are worth:

I've had serious relationships, as well as one-nighters. The one-nighters lacked the emotional connection of the serious relationships, but they were a) fun (on more than just the obvious level) and b) not in any way harmful to any of the parties involved.

The girl I've been with for three years- a very serious relationship- intially began as a 'sex only, no strings attached' f***buddies situation that developed into something more as we got to know one another more. The relationship developed naturally, but really that was because we had more between us than any of the woman that I've had casual 'one-nighters' with- or, for that matter, most of my female friends whom I didn't have any sort of sexual encounter with. It occurs to me that chances are our relationship would have developed anyway, with or without sex to begin with.

A feminist blogger I once read (sorry, no idea who) came up with a really good analogy about sexual dynamics that thows an interesting light on the OP's link. She talked about two essentially different views on sex.

One view was the idea of sex/relationships as a compeditive event- say, basketball. The man and the woman essentially see the two as a battle of sorts- typically the man is trying to win by getting sex without comitting, while the woman is trying to get the man to commit while witholding sex as long as possible. The core of this relationship is that the two are, despite being in a relationship together, at odds with each other- they are both trying to establish a 'winner/loser' dynamic. The relationship is, at it's heart, unhealthy.

The second (in the blogger's mind, feminist) viewpoint is the idea of sex/relationships as a cooperative undertaking- making music, if you would. When you play in a (two person, typically) band, you're trying to make something together- there's a more clearly defined 'winner/winner' dynamic. it's a lot more healthy relationship, although it requires both people to be mature and honest about what they want. That's been the dynamic in which my 'one-nighters' has been established under.

The thing about the OP's link is that it's view on sex is clearly entrenched in the first viewpoint. Maybe the writer has met too many men who fall into the first category as well. It's still an ugly view of things, in my mind.

...wow, that's a lot of rambling nonsense. Sorry bout that.

[Meph]

I'm just 23 so it's impossibile to me having a true comparison between the world today and the world 20, 40 or 60 years ago. And wanna talk about geographical different situations?

In Antiquity and in the Middle Age sex was a common matter of fact, as killing etc. were.
They told that in the 50 the song was the low-sex world's one. But, who here can say it loud?
60s, free sex in free youth new movement. Quite an orgy reading Yeats and Marx and Sartre, as they tell it.
70s, free sex in drug-confused and "make love not war" minds. Quite a Woodstock-like orgy, as they tell it.
80s and 90s, some of you should tell us if it really was so difficult to score. Movies tell not (Heaters, for example).
Today and in the just finished decade, I neither have nor had any problems at all. Still I know someone who has not success with girls, but by looking at them I must take the girls' part.

Concluding, I think the sex parity affir is a big thing and that the world needed it, but sex is a good which price has not changed in my opinion.

[Lost Demiurge]

Wow. What a great discussion this has turned into...

Married male here, mid-thirties. Been married 5 years, roughly. Over the course of years 20-30, I had only four relationships worthy of the name.

I didn't get physical until college. The first relationship was rough, we made a lot of mistakes. Had some good times too, but it was rough and we moved away from each other both figuratively and literally.

The second relationship was a fling, but I didn't realize it at the time. She used me to get through some rough times, but I don't grudge her that. The promise of anything deeper was never made, and we both walked away happy.

The third relationship was inequal. She wanted more than I could give, and I just couldn't love her. We tried using each other, but I found that to be wrong in its way. I can't use people, it isn't in my nature. That was the first and only time I ended a relationship.

The fourth one I married! I'd met her way before, and considered her a friend. Then when I ran into her again back in '04 or so, she asked me out. SHE asked ME. Whoa. There is no quicker way to get my attention then to cut through the footsie and bullcrap and common expectation that a guy's gonna ask first, then to show your courage and just ask.

We dated for a year or so before I popped the question. Then we lived together for roughly a year while I gathered money and made wedding plans. We were amorous during all of this... The point of living together before we were married was to make sure that we were compatible. If it didn't work out then we could split before having to go through all the mess of a divorce and all that happy crap.

We're still together today. In the years since, though, I've noticed that I have some non-traditional views on marriage and relationships.

My wife accepts these views, practices, and preferences without reservation, and I do the same for her own views, practices, and preferences, which are fully her business. It's a part of who we are, that's all. We know that we are there for each other, and that we're gonna be lifers.

Sex is never easy. Finding someone whose expectations and preferences either match your own or are flexible enough to work with yours is TRICKY. Everyone's coming at it from different life experiences and conceptions.

In the end, we manage to work it out. There's a few guidelines that I've found along the way.

A. Never take your partner or partners for granted. Make sure they have fun too.
B. Sex is only part of a relationship. Sometimes it's not a vital part.
C. Men and women are both humans, first. The physical differences are actually not the be-all and end-all of an individual's personality. A lot of times they're not even important parts of WHO they are.
D. Casual sex is trickier for some people than others.
E. Don't compromise your principles. Do be prepared to bend them if you find a better principle.

Mf, listen to me ramble. Someone else's turn now, I think. Be well, and have fun, folks...

[Mordokai]

I mostly just read OP and I have but one thing to say on it.

I obviously am not looking hard enough. Or in the right places. Or a little bit of both.

[Keld Denar]

Somebloke, thats not that much of a ramble, and if it makes you feel any better, your situation is identical to my own. I was "FWB" with my current girlfriend for like, 4 months before we changed our Facebook status to "in a relationship" (because if its not on Facebook, its not for real!). We found out that we are very compatable physically, and in between the physical stuff, found out that we also have a ton of other commonalities and thus our relationship built upon itself. In the last 4 months since then, we are still physical, just not quite as much as we first were, despite the fact that we are spending more time together for any given span of time.

I don't think our relationship is any less valid at this point because we went from lovers to friends instead of the other way around. Shes my best friend at this point, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Syka]

That's about where I am on it. It's almost like marriage has two faces to it. The most important part of marriage, like the most important part of family, is defined by love and nothing else. IMO, the law merely recognizes and grants rights and responsibilities to something that already exists.

Pretty much this. We've decided that, in so far as we can get the legal rights through other means, there is no reason for us to 'seal the deal'. Before we move, I want to see a lawyer about power of attorney, making sure we can see each other in hospitals, etc. If it happens that, say, he can't get health insurance without us being married, we'd do it then. But we're not chuffed either way and we definitely aren't going anywhere.


@Syka: A lawyer might very well argue you and Oz are married, in what is called common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage), also known as "sui juris marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute."

My uncle lived with the same woman for 40 years, raised kids with her, never slept with anyone else, but they never exchanged vows. *I* say they were married, even if it was not formalized via law or church ceremony.

Someone may object ... "but without a formal commitment, couldn't he walk out whenever he wanted to"? And how is that different from a formal marriage in the world of no fault divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fault_divorce)?

To my mind, marriage is first and foremost a commitment to each other, one that both parties will keep. The rest of it -- legal issues, dresses, ceremonies, and what not -- are all icing on top of the cake of a promise between two people to become one, to watch each other's back and to make a life together.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Actually, we couldn't be common law. I've researched common law marriage. None of the three states we plan to live in (Florida currently, then either New York or California) recognize "new" common law marriages. Unless they were entered into before a specific date, it's not common law. We also don't currently live together. Most places have been phasing it out.

But yeah, that's why my mom calls him my husband, his mom has slipped up a couple times, etc. We keep getting harassed by his extended family (hence why we don't see them much) and friend's parents, though. :smallsigh:



One view was the idea of sex/relationships as a compeditive event- say, basketball. The man and the woman essentially see the two as a battle of sorts- typically the man is trying to win by getting sex without comitting, while the woman is trying to get the man to commit while witholding sex as long as possible. The core of this relationship is that the two are, despite being in a relationship together, at odds with each other- they are both trying to establish a 'winner/loser' dynamic. The relationship is, at it's heart, unhealthy.

The second (in the blogger's mind, feminist) viewpoint is the idea of sex/relationships as a cooperative undertaking- making music, if you would. When you play in a (two person, typically) band, you're trying to make something together- there's a more clearly defined 'winner/winner' dynamic. it's a lot more healthy relationship, although it requires both people to be mature and honest about what they want. That's been the dynamic in which my 'one-nighters' has been established under.

The thing about the OP's link is that it's view on sex is clearly entrenched in the first viewpoint. Maybe the writer has met too many men who fall into the first category as well. It's still an ugly view of things, in my mind.

...wow, that's a lot of rambling nonsense. Sorry bout that.

Yeah, I know a lot of people who see it from the first point of view. It's where crap like The Rules come from, et al. I ascribe to the second view in all things relationship. I do not do games, I will not hide stuff, etc. etc. etc.

If Oz hadn't known me better, he very well may have thought I was doing the former by "holding out". As it was, he knew I had very good reasons and wasn't waiting just to "test" him. Sadly, I know many women who WILL wait just to test men. Or they will withhold sex at later stages in the relationship, among other things. That's just going about sex in the wrong way.

[Talya]

To really know the price of sex, someone needs to go get quotes from some prostitutes. Any volunteers?

[Somebloke]

Actually, I have a copy of Superfreakanomics, where it's discussed at length. I'll grab it in the morning- I'm off to bed.

[Cristo Meyers]

One view was the idea of sex/relationships as a compeditive event- say, basketball. The man and the woman essentially see the two as a battle of sorts- typically the man is trying to win by getting sex without comitting, while the woman is trying to get the man to commit while witholding sex as long as possible. The core of this relationship is that the two are, despite being in a relationship together, at odds with each other- they are both trying to establish a 'winner/loser' dynamic. The relationship is, at it's heart, unhealthy.


I was thinking about this for a while at work and I started wondering just how much this view of sex in relationships factors into the much-touted 50% divorce rate.

This view honestly does seem to be the unfortunate norm and, as you rightly pointed out, it creates both an unhealthy and unequal relationship. Especially when the dynamic continues into marriage.


Yeah, I know a lot of people who see it from the first point of view. It's where crap like The Rules come from, et al. I ascribe to the second view in all things relationship. I do not do games, I will not hide stuff, etc. etc. etc.

It honestly astounds me how many people don't do this this way. Would you rather bite the bullet and be honest about something or keep playing games that slowly turn your relationship toxic?

[MonkeyBusiness]

Regarding Kneenibble's question:
Knee, I've always thought the 50's rightly earmed their reputation for repression in part because of WW2. Women went to work in unprecedented numbers during the war, and many of them became quite skilled and wanted to keep their jobs. They were not allowed to do this, because the returning soldiers "needed" those jobs "more". The GI's were also given scholarships to train them for jobs such as teaching - traditionally one of the few jobs women could be assured of. This puzzles me, because after WW1 the situation was the opposite: both women and men had an unprecedented freedom of expression in the 1920's.

I could go on about that, but it would get us rapidly off-topic.

Regarding the "price" of sex:
I think some people do think of sex as having a price. Some people also think that relationships have a price. My ex was one of these, but he did not realize he was. He was a workaholic and was never at home. He'd "forget" to call to say he'd be home late. I lost track of the ruined dinners, or the times when I called his work place because it was 11 pm and he was supposed to be home at 5. Days would go by and we'd not see enough of each other to have a conversation.

He was not getting paid more to work late; he was not even asked to work late. He simply did because he could not stop himself. I was very lonely. But worse than the loneliness was the way I felt disregarded.

And yet, at Christmas or on my birthday he'd give me an expensive gift - sometimes one we could not practically afford - to "show me how much he loved me". And he'd be all amorous that night, as if he thought the occasion or the gift would get me in the mood.

I know his love was sincere, and that the gift was an expression of that love. But what I wanted - and asked for - was his time. I lost interest in sex, partly because it's those everyday interactions that build intimacy for me, and without that sex was no fun at all. He was angry and hurt I didn't respond the way he expected, and stubbornly insisted that he did not have more time to spend with me. (EDIT: actually, I still wanted sex - but somehow, when I turned to him, my desire vanished. How could I be intimate with someone who never had time to talk to me? Why would I want to have sex with someone who could not be bothered to tell me he'd be late coming home - so I would not worry, and so maybe I could make my own plans.)

When he refused to change his work habits and refused to go to marriage counselling, I left. I wound up selling one of his last gifts to me to help fund my move. I didn't even feel sad about that, because there was no emotional significance attached to the gift. I would much rather that he'd spent the money on some counselling sessions, or vacation time with me so we could re-connect.

So for me, as for many others, the "price of sex" is the opposite of what the author of the NYP article assumes.

.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

[Cristo Meyers]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

My mother was one for most of my childhood and teenage life, but that kind of thing was really more or less expected where I grew up.

[Nix Nihila]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Almost the entirety of my female extended family. But that's largely due to their religion. I'm having trouble thinking of anyone I know well who's a housewife though (I don't know my extended family very well).

[Orzel]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

I live in NYC. Most married non-immigrant adults I know work because you usually can't afford not to. The closest thing to a housewife I've seen is my aunt who babysits the family's children.

[Dr. Roboto]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Male, in my teens, Missouri (American Midwest).

Honestly? I can't think of any mother who isn't a housewife. I don't know the stories of most of my friend's parents, but their families all follow the working dad, housewife model. My mom went to college, got a degree in chemistry, moved to Missouri, and met my dad. She quit her job to raise kids. Granted, she has since started working, but because of the almost 20 year gap, she doesn't really have a chance to get to a high position before retirement.

Of course, maybe my community attracts people looking for "traditional family values". We live in the suburbs, if that makes a difference.

[Coidzor]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Even the well-to-do families I've known have felt/been too poor to afford the luxury of spending much time with their children, much less having half the couple stay home to keep house and raise them.

[NOhara24]

Responding to Nohara24, whose post I read before it was trimmed:

I have a rule NEVER to flame people who are telling me the truth as they see it, especially when I've asked for it.

Instead, I'll thank you for your honesty.

I think the 'save it for marriage' crowd agrees with you on this bit --



... the solution they -- all right , we, since I'm a fan of marriage -- is to get to know each other as people before making the Big Step. I had a textbook called Too Close Too Soon (http://www.amazon.com/Too-Close-Soon-Heartache-Premature/dp/0785264744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317151027&sr=8-1) which recommended getting to know each other for 3-6 months as friends before starting to explore intimacy and romance. The idea being to let the hormonal infatuation drain and take a cold, hard look at the person before you found yourself in a situation you might regret.

Because, the way I see it , from a purely medical perspective once you've had sex with someone you can't undo it. For the rest of your life, for example, when donating blood, you're going to be asked questions about your previous history and whether you're really, really sure your partner wasn't HIV-infected or what not. And the best time to find that out, of course, is before you've taken the step.

The important thing , they stress, is to work out whether you're an emotional, mental, and spiritual match for each other before you tie a physical knot with a person that could potentially have all kinds of consequences. And it's a decision not best made in the heat of passion.

If you're a match for each other in other ways, as a rule the physical mechanics of getting the bits together can be worked out. If you're not a match, there's a limit to how long Great Sex can be the sole basis of a relationship.

However, there is an exception to the above rule, which I have seen and would be remiss to mention: It's a very good idea to find out if your prospective partner has any history of abuse. A person who has been badly mistreated by the opposite sex can sometimes find it VERY hard to give that kind of physical intimacy again. It can make things ... awkward.

As to the rest of your post -- as to what the twenty-something femme expects -- well, I'm an old married dog and I'll defer to the actual females here :). I've been out of the game too long for my expertise to be current.

I suspect, though, that courtesy and mutual respect still go a long way towards a long-term relationship.

ETA: My wife and I met on Dec 18, 1993 and were married Feb 1, 1994, having a whirlwind courtship of six weeks. Are we glad we got married? Yes. Do we both wish we'd spent a lot more time getting to know each other first? Heck yes .
Respectfully,

Brian P.


Emotional, mental and spiritual matches are all good and fine. But for me that really just guarantees that I can have a conversation with the person. I truly have to be firing on all 4 cylinders with a person (emotional, spiritual, mental AND physical.) before I decide to become serious with them. Because any one of those failing can (and will) lead to the failure of the relationship. Or worse, the relationship continues on despite the parties being unhappy.

Sex nowadays isn't something that's a commodity by any means. I daresay sexual compatibility has progressed into something that has to be considered BEFORE getting married. This is largely because it's not nearly as taboo anymore. It's possible for someone my age to have had multiple partners by now. And due to that, the person in question is going to have had good AND bad sexual experiences.

If everyone subscribed to the "save it for marriage" school of thought, then of course the physical connection wouldn't be something that factored into compatibility. Because both parties wouldn't know that sex could be good or bad. Whichever it was, they would assume that's how it is with no matter who they were with. So the other 3 would be the only ones that would matter. But that's not the case.

Girls in my generation aren't told to "save it" anymore. They're told to "use protection". I'm not going to get into which is more effective or better, because that's not the point of the thread. It's largely just that through the passage of time, sex has become less scandalous, and because of that, it's become more common. And because it's become more common, it's become something that couples consider before they get married.

Your suspicions on long-term relationships are still entirely correct, I suspect that's something of a relief to you.

As far as sex being something that can't be undone, you're correct. But it can be made largely inconsequential, through getting tested beforehand, using protection during, the greater majority of the time it will be something that can be forgotten. As far as your blood donation example, they asked me last time I donated if I was active. I replied yes. They asked if I used protection. Yes. They asked if I had gotten tested within some period of time, and if it came back clean. I also said yes. (Of course I'm not factoring in the emotional part of it. Namely because my views aren't the exact same as everyone else's.)

As a side note, this is the last conversation I expected to be having on an internet forum.

[Objection]

After looking at/skimming over some replies to this thread, I'm going to see what all the fuss is about. After reading the article, while I don't entirely agree with it, I did find one very good point:


“If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future -- that is, committing to marry?”

...

“If men don’t want to take the time to woo a real woman, they can watch sex acts in high definition with images of women who never say no,”

What is the difference between casual sex outside of a serious romantic relationship, and sex within such a relationship? The answer is, the latter is with a companion. But don't you have other companions called "friends" already? And the level of investment required for platonic friendship, while far from negligible, is less than that required for a romantic relationship. So logically, platonic friend(s) + casual sex with other person/people > sex within a serious romantic relationship. Of course, this is assuming that the sex is for recreational purposes as opposed to procreational purposes as the latter requires a level of after-sex commitment beyond the casual sex level.

EDIT:

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Recently turned 20 and I cannot name a housewife in my family. In fact, for some time, my mother was the breadwinner in the family.

[THAC0]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Yes, plenty. I know some people who wanted that life. I know some people who had it forced on them by circumstances. Heck, I guess I'm technically a housewife right now because I lost my job with our last move and we're moving again in such a short period of time that it wasn't worth my time or effort to get a job here.

My mother was a housewife when we were younger. She started working more once we're in school.

We, my husband and I, hope to be able to have one person stay home with the spawn (when/if we have any) at least until the child is in school. Whether this will be him or me depends on a number of things.

[Syka]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

I do, I do! I'm mid-twenties, raised in suburbia. Not a particularly religious area.

My mom was a housewife. I know a girl from a church I used to go to who is a housewife, my age, but she is very religious so that probably plays a part. My boyfriends cousins, I think at least 1 if not all 3 are housewives. I also know as many where the mother does work...usually 'cause you need to.

As a young woman with a graduate level education and career aspirations who is very liberal, I could see myself being a housewife, if I had kids. If I don't ever have kids, I plan on working until retirement. And if my job is the one bringing in the money, Oz has no problem being a househusband.

I just feel it is very important for a child to have a parent available when they get home from school, when they get sick, on breaks, etc. If we can't handle a one income household, I want to at least have flexibility.

[KnightDisciple]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.
A couple friends from college are, as I recall, housewives. If they do have work, it's not full time. One or two friends from high school days, though I don't keep track of a lot of them quite as well.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Several of my immigrant friends, I believe.
Also, my best friend's mum, but she also homeschools her kids, of which she has 4, so... It's not quite the same.

[CoffeeIncluded]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

My aunt is a housewife. As for my parents, I think my mom works longer hours than my dad does. No, that's not true; it's just that my dad works at home really late into the night.

[Katana_Geldar]

I have no problem with women being housewives these days if that is what they choose. That is the real message of feminism for me: having that choice and not being forced to do something by social conventions.
Be a housewife if that's what you want, just don't try and convince other people that it's the only right thing.

[Talya]

If we could afford it, I'd gladly be a housewife. Seriously...needing employment SUCKS. As does working for anybody else. I work to live. I can't think of a single job I would like to do because of the job itself. When work is just a means to an end, your dream life is to achieve that end without needing the means. :smallwink: However, I outearn my husband by a small margin, and we make a pretty good living for ourselves, so that's really out of the question.

[Dacia Brabant]

As a man in my early-mid 30's I'm outside the age range for the question, so I'm going to answer it in a bit different way. At the college and university I attended (wingnut religious--big mistake) the not-unfounded stereotype for girls was that they were there to earn their Mrs. degree, and whether it was out of a feeling of religious obligation to be a baby factory or to latch onto a trust fund baby or a guaranteed 6-figure salaryman, I found that to be highly unattractive.

I realize my feelings on the matter are largely because I rejected my upbringing, so it's a psychological thing, but even so I cannot understand the desire to stay home once the kids are in school. Housework isn't that hard to manage if both partners (and the kids, once they're old enough) pitch in equally, and I believe in the dictum that all shall work. Likewise, my experience has been that I'm only interested in having/only able to have a mutual relationship with a woman whose career/education comes first for her, as mine does for me.

Unfortunately, this has proven quite difficult to make work, partly because we didn't have/didn't make time or didn't know how to make the relationship work, but also my perception has been that while the women I've dated have wanted their career to come first for them, they often were controlling and wanted themselves to come first for me, and I don't feel that's fair or equitable.

tl;dr I'm glad the "cult of domesticity" is vanishing, I just wish I'd spent more of my youth in places where it was already on the wane.

[Mando Knight]

Male, in my teens, Missouri (American Midwest).

Honestly? I can't think of any mother who isn't a housewife. I don't know the stories of most of my friend's parents, but their families all follow the working dad, housewife model. My mom went to college, got a degree in chemistry, moved to Missouri, and met my dad. She quit her job to raise kids. Granted, she has since started working, but because of the almost 20 year gap, she doesn't really have a chance to get to a high position before retirement.

Of course, maybe my community attracts people looking for "traditional family values". We live in the suburbs, if that makes a difference.
You're in Missouri. That doesn't count. :smalltongue: Neither do Iowa, Nebraska, Southern Illinois...

[Erloas]

I have a friend, that is now in her early 30s, that would like to have been able to stay at home with her kids but her husband wasn't even close to being able to support them on his own. Although she did get a job at a day care/pre-school* so she is with her kids all the time now anyway.

Other then that I don't know of any. But I don't know any of them that really are in a financial situation where its much of an option.

[Trobby]

Wait...we do? Really?? :smalleek:


Ack. X_x; This is the second time I've had this problem with the way I worded my statements.

I do not mean "women" as in "all" women, but "women" as in "some women". I.E., SOME women visualize it in that regard.

My point is that it is where the idea of a 'perfect housewife', as conceptualized in modern times, typically is said to come from. It is not to imply that all women everywhere ever actually look up to that model.

On the contrary, I believe many young women, and indeed likely many older women, do NOT look up to that idea as an ideal.

._. I did not mean to imply the exact opposite of what I was trying to say.

[Syka]

I realize my feelings on the matter are largely because I rejected my upbringing, so it's a psychological thing, but even so I cannot understand the desire to stay home once the kids are in school. Housework isn't that hard to manage if both partners (and the kids, once they're old enough) pitch in equally, and I believe in the dictum that all shall work. Likewise, my experience has been that I'm only interested in having/only able to have a mutual relationship with a woman whose career/education comes first for her, as mine does for me.

Unfortunately, this has proven quite difficult to make work, partly because we didn't have/didn't make time or didn't know how to make the relationship work, but also my perception has been that while the women I've dated have wanted their career to come first for them, they often were controlling and wanted themselves to come first for me, and I don't feel that's fair or equitable.

tl;dr I'm glad the "cult of domesticity" is vanishing, I just wish I'd spent more of my youth in places where it was already on the wane.

One problem with the first paragraph: Studies show, on a consistent basis, women pick up most of the slack at home. A lot of men still expect the women to do most household chores, even if they work the same hours and are largely responsible for childcare.

As for the second: I want my partner to put me first, as they are first for me (ultimately). My career/education comes second. I will do what I need to at a job, but not at the risk of my relationship or family health. But I'm also a very family oriented person. When I worked my first job, my manager was well aware my job came third, after my family and school. But that's me. :)

For instance, Oz is dedicated to his career. But when a director he worked for asked him very short notice (like, an hour before the deadline when we were half an hour away) to drop off some equipment at Fed Ex, or the director would be out a few thousand dollars, what did he do first? He asked me. 'Cause it was our date night, the first in a while because of this shoot.

I said yes, of course, but I like that he respected my feelings enough to ask instead of dropping me to appease a guy who could potentially help make his career. And I've told him, if my future career ever negatively impacts our relationship to tell me.


You're in Missouri. That doesn't count. :smalltongue: Neither do Iowa, Nebraska, Southern Illinois...

Hey now. :smallwink: Boyfriend is from Southern Illinois, and his mom worked his whole life. But yeah...in general it doesn't count. Most folks he knows from high school are married with kids, and I think a lot of the women are SAHM's.

[Scarlet Knight]

I found this statistic in an article I read tonight: the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), estimates that 19 million new infections are caused by Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) each year, costing the US Health Care system over $16 billion annually. The reference was from 2009 statistics.

Just another piece in the puzzle.

[NineThePuma]

That's how you know you've got a keeper: when you catch a glimpse of a flail cunningly hidden in her purse. :smallcool:

You made me laugh out loud. Like, really. Your post has been bookmarked so I can link to it. I'll read the rest of the thread now, but to answer the OP:

Sex is cheaper? Then why does it cost me a metaphorical arm and leg? =\ I mean, yes, I suppose magic the gathering might be a turn off, but seriously.

[Dacia Brabant]

One problem with the first paragraph: Studies show, on a consistent basis, women pick up most of the slack at home. A lot of men still expect the women to do most household chores, even if they work the same hours and are largely responsible for childcare.

Oh I know, and I think that's appalling. I've never had a problem with keeping the place tidy and doing what was needed, except for the one time I suffered from a crippling bout of depression but that's different. In fact I would say I have a compulsory need to clean common areas since they have an affect on other people. Of course, that's purely anecdotal and doesn't say anything about the statistics, but generally it isn't and shouldn't be that hard, the only hard part I suppose is having the will to do it.

As for the rest, I'm happy for you and your partner. I'm glad you two have a healthy relationship with a mutual understanding and respect for each other's goals and expectations. They're not ones I share, but then it's not as if they need to be.

[Syka]

The trick is just finding someone who feels similarly. :) I'd never work with someone for whom work was the absolute top priority. And they would never work with me.

But if you can find someone who feels similarly, your set. :smallsmile: Like many things in a relationship, it's just about matching up values (regarding work, marriage, children, sex, finances, etc). The rest are details.

[Weezer]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

In the town I grew up in it was pretty common. Much of the town was made up of upper middle class/upper class families where the father was a banker or upper management or owned a business, while the mother stayed home. It was by far the richest town in the area, so I'd imagine it's more common where I was from than most places.

[Dacia Brabant]

The trick is just finding someone who feels similarly. :) I'd never work with someone for whom work was the absolute top priority. And they would never work with me.

But if you can find someone who feels similarly, your set. :smallsmile: Like many things in a relationship, it's just about matching up values (regarding work, marriage, children, sex, finances, etc). The rest are details.

Indeed. Hence the problem I alluded to at the end of my earlier post: I'm getting older, I'm getting deeper into my career and, unless there's a drastic change, I'm pretty much locked into the area where I'm living now, which is large town/small city Mountain West, so even if my relationship needs were "normal" my prospects would still be limited. Because of the nature of my work I meet lots of people, but that's through work and I've always felt awkward about asking out someone I've dealt with professionally even if we're not in the same office. Something I'll have to overcome I guess. Either that or try the internets again.

Sorry if this is venging into "relationship problems and advice" territory.

[ShortOne]

Several of my immigrant friends, I believe.
Also, my best friend's mum, but she also homeschools her kids, of which she has 4, so... It's not quite the same.

As someone who's been in a homeschooled family and observed other homeschooling families, I can tell you that while many homeschooling parents don't have jobs per say, homeschooling the kids takes up just as much time and energy.

[toasty]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

I know a few Housewives, but, I admit, I also grew up in Asia. Not sure if that counts.

Among my family, I think there are at least 2 house wives on my mom's side of the family. That's out of 9 kids. Everyone else, both parents work (my might technically be a house wife, but I don't count having a part-time job with my dad AND homeschooling 3 kids through high school as a housewife).

And I know I'm just jumping in here, but, A) nearly twenty, never kissed a girl. B) nearly twenty, not entirely interested in kissing a girl (yes, I'm straight). Why? dunno, it'd be nice... having a girlfriend, but it seems like too much work to acquire one. I'd rather just be friends with people. I've also come to the conclusion that I wish Arranged-Marriages were more socially acceptable in the West, because, honestly, that seems like a perfectly acceptable way for me to get a partner.

I suppose I should also mention that yeah, I'm going to date someone for a long term relationship, not for a one-night stand/free sex. I'm sure sex is amazing, but... so what? I can wait. I have a lot of other things to do. I'm a introverted nerd who spent most of today playing video games and doing homework. I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Fera Tian]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

My step mom is a housewife. I'm 18, she's probably a little under 40.

[Ricky S]

Interesting article and very true. I actually wish that it was harder to get laid. There is just no challenge in it and the sex is completely meaningless. I have found that girls just want to have sex. They dont want to date which is good and all but I actually want some sort of connection. If I just wanted meaningless sex I would hire a prostitute.

With the way the world is I really cannot see myself getting married at all. There just doesn't seem to be a point. Granted I am not at that stage yet nor have I met anyone that I have truly liked but it seems like I never will.

(Wow 7 pages long and it was posted only last night. THis is one fast paced thread)

[Bhu]

Emotional, mental and spiritual matches are all good and fine. But for me that really just guarantees that I can have a conversation with the person. I truly have to be firing on all 4 cylinders with a person (emotional, spiritual, mental AND physical.) before I decide to become serious with them. Because any one of those failing can (and will) lead to the failure of the relationship. Or worse, the relationship continues on despite the parties being unhappy.


This. I'm old enough now to have watched many of my friends get divorced and the top 3 reasons are money, sex, and having children, not necessarily in that order. Sex seems to be a biggie when it comes to divorce (keep in mind when I was growing up you were expected to remain celibate till marriage). The couples I've known who went that route quickly discovered one of them had a vastly higher sex drive than the other, one was into some kink the other found repulsive, or one of them had far more emotional hangups than the other over the act. And instead of discussing it and coming to terms with it, their upbringing lead them to simply repress and ignore until they exploded one day, and then the divorce comes quickly after.

Not that I should be surprised. When I was in high school most coaches, parents, male teachers told the boys "Say what you have to, to get what you want, get in, and get out before she gets pregnant or finds a way to trap you." Girls were told by parents and teachers "Say no until you can find one you can tolerate, and who will earn enough to support you so you don't have to work, and then get pregnant as fast as possible so he'll have to marry you". 22 years later they have the gall to be surprised when their children's relationships have all failed, yet insist their grandchildren be taught the same self destructive behaviors. Out of all the people I remember form high school I still occasionally see, I'd say two thirds of them have been divorced. A good chunk of them more than once. Several others burned out, surrendered to depression or alcoholism and never got married at all. Granted I live in a small midwestern town so that experience is prolly alien to a lot of you.

[Eldan]

I have a question for any of the younger (teens and maybe twentysomethings) people in this thread.

Do you know a housewife? Because I can't think of a single one. At all. Excluding people who were adults in the 50s I mean. Grandma (if she was one) doesn't count.

Mid twenty-something, Switzerland, grew up in a small town.

No one in my family. I have three aunts, all of them work. My mother manages a retirement/nursing home with a few hundred patients and a few hundred employees. No one I can remember from school or university is a house wife.
However, I know a few other kids I went to school with had mothers who stayed at home. However, all of those still had at least a part-time job.

[Somebloke]

I found this statistic in an article I read tonight: the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), estimates that 19 million new infections are caused by Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) each year, costing the US Health Care system over $16 billion annually. The reference was from 2009 statistics.

Just another piece in the puzzle.

It would be nice to know how these stacked up to cases 10, 20, 50 or 80 years ago etc, or if they are rising or falling right now. Right now it sort of lacks context- just a number without any other numbers to compare to.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I'm not sure we actually have more STDs now than we had in earlier years. At the very least I'd say Syphilis is quite a bit rarer than two or three hundred years ago :smallwink:

[dehro]

Interesting article and very true. I actually wish that it was harder to get laid. There is just no challenge in it and the sex is completely meaningless. I have found that girls just want to have sex. They dont want to date which is good and all but I actually want some sort of connection.


where did you say you live?
as for STD... yeah..no more syphilis (or negligible statistical values of it).. but that one can now be cures through injections and such.. HIV, not so much..
I've talked with a lot of older/slightly older people about these matters, and they did say that the HIV-scare has very much changed the rules of the game. there are now a few generations who grew up when children was the only long term "negative consequence" in having casual sex, and there was either a cure or a prevention for that.. and generations who have grown up with the impression that a hazmat suit is about the only thing that can keep the evil HIV monster away from us. now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a free-for-all approach or saying we should be less cautious than it is sensible to be... hells..I'd rather not risk an STD at all, much less a life altering/ending one.
even now, with these issues well known and advertised, there are people who take sleeping around as much as possible with little or no precautions as a mission in life...and that, coupled with the mentioned STDs is what really ruins the game for those of us who would not object to some harmless non-relationship-implicating fun.. but cannot indulge in it because at the very least some sort of background check is needed, just to be safe... which in most cases involves some degree of familiarity/friendship/trust..beyond mutual attraction..something that flies in the face of 99% of the "one night stand" situations.
now my personal preference is still to have some connection with the girl I aim to do the naughty with..so I would probably still put some effort in, spend some time courting/getting to know/checking at least if we tick a few boxes of each other's kink list, so to speak.. and trying to figure out if she's been having unprotected sex with half the local male population or not.. or whether she is actually looking to get pregnant in order to find a way to settle down (you'd be surprised how often I've seen that happen, sometimes to close friends)
.. but I would like the opportunity to choose to go down the path of caution, rather than having it forced upon me by HIV, social stigma, hidden personal agendas and whatnot.

[Avilan the Grey]

After looking at/skimming over some replies to this thread, I'm going to see what all the fuss is about. After reading the article, while I don't entirely agree with it, I did find one very good point:


“If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future -- that is, committing to marry?”


This is a very strange question for me, but it obviously ties into the writers "old fashioned" mindset. The idea that a man only marries "to get some" is... mindbogglingly stupid.

To answer the question in a more positive light: Because he is in love. Duh.

I also want to comment on the "Western" thing that was up for discussion before... For us in Europe, "The Western World" does indeed include not only the US of A, but the EU, most countries in Europe outside the EU (like Norway, Switzerland), etc, Canada, Iceland... There are large differences between countries (Germany has a surprisingly strong housewife culture, while the number of women who are housewives in Scandinavia are very small, for example) but on the big issues we are all the same: Women can vote, wear whatever they want, work etc etc.

[Mono Vertigo]

I'm a 23-year-old Belgian, and my mother (58 this year) is a housewife. Not by choice; she had the potential to study and become an engineer, but her father was several kinds of expletives when she was young. My half-sister isn't, although she has 2 young daughters. And I have no idea about the rest of my family today. As for me? I'm trying to find a job. But if I had to choose between being a housewife and having a soul-crushing job like my father had, being a housewife wins.

[pendell]

I realize my feelings on the matter are largely because I rejected my upbringing, so it's a psychological thing, but even so I cannot understand the desire to stay home once the kids are in school.


Well, I can't speak to the rest of your post, but this one I can.

I remember being six years old, we moved to a brand new city. Los Angeles. I had no friends.

We moved into soulless tract housing populated by other twenty something suburban couples. They also had no kids.

What this meant is that I had no contact whatsoever with other human beings from the time I left school (at about 3 PM) to the time my mother got home (6 PM, I think).

You've also got to understand, that as a small child with asthma and glasses and much, much too intelligence, I had a bad time at school.

That doesn't sound like much to an adult. To a six year old child, growing up alone in an alien environment, before video games, it meant I spent several hours screaming at the walls.

It left permanent marks.

Fundamentally, I was put on my own at too young an age. It would have been different if I had brothers or sisters or , heck, a family pet. Or at least other kids in the neighborhood I could visit with after hours. But with none of those things .. bullied badly at school, completely alone at home .. I needed family.

Doesn't mean my mom had to stay home, though I daresay I sabotaged her attempts at employment every chance I got. But it was a problem that needed solving.

The way we solved it was that my school eventually dumped me into a psychological clinic. That got my parents attention, and we worked on it together as a family.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kuma Da]

I found this statistic in an article I read tonight: the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), estimates that 19 million new infections are caused by Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) each year, costing the US Health Care system over $16 billion annually. The reference was from 2009 statistics.

Just another piece in the puzzle.

Valid, but preventable. Part of the problem with sex being a taboo subject is that people do it anyways, but the really important stuff like birth control and disease prevention gets stigmatized.

Is waiting for marriage safer than sleeping around? Yes. But getting tested/using protection/being able to talk with your partner about your histories is pretty safe, too.

[Knaight]

Fundamentally, I was put on my own at too young an age. It would have been different if I had brothers or sisters or , heck, a family pet. Or at least other kids in the neighborhood I could visit with after hours. But with none of those things .. bullied badly at school, completely alone at home .. I needed family.

As you said, a stay at home parent is hardly the only option. Friends are ideal, though moving around too much can make that difficult, particularly if you don't fit in well at school - and I've been there, to the point of drastically concealing what intelligence I had through all of middle school, a habit I've yet to fully kick. Even something like daycare works, if you have the money for it. Then, there are siblings. I was not an only child, and not being an only child is what kept me sane, along with the friends I had when I was younger, and less sociable. It tends to be hard for only children to understand just how close siblings get, and just how big of a deal this is - particularly when one hears far too much about siblings who don't get along, mostly because they were never allowed to just interact with each other. Suffice to say that even the closest parent-child relationships are a cheap imitation of siblings. At best.

[ShortOne]

Yeah, I'm not sure we actually have more STDs now than we had in earlier years. At the very least I'd say Syphilis is quite a bit rarer than two or three hundred years ago :smallwink:

As with a lot of other statistics, like the ones I mentioned earlier, we're just identifying them better. They had no clue that a lot of them existed 2-300 years ago.



...even now, with these issues well known and advertised, there are people who take sleeping around as much as possible with little or no precautions as a mission in life...

Bolded the important bit.

The problem is (bear in mind, coming from an American who didn't go to public school but got a comprehensive sex ed course, and has been following the saga of American sex ed for years) that there are still many places (in the US) that don't offer comprehensive sex ed. If you're a teenager who lives in, say, Texas, and all you got was abstinence-only sex education (meaning nothing else in school and nothing externally), you have no clue about using condoms to protect against either pregnancy or STDs. You probably don't even know that there are diseases you can get from having sex. You're highly unlikely to use a condom, and therefore highly likely to end up on a show like 16 and Pregnant. I met a girl who grew up in rural Pennsylvania whose high school had a DAYCARE attached. So I'd say that the issues are well-known and advertised for those who live in more urban settings and/or come from a more privileged background.

[PersonMan]

Valid, but preventable. Part of the problem with sex being a taboo subject is that people do it anyways, but the really important stuff like birth control and disease prevention gets stigmatized.

Is waiting for marriage safer than sleeping around? Yes. But getting tested/using protection/being able to talk with your partner about your histories is pretty safe, too.

I agree.

One of the problems in the USA is the prevalence of abstinence-until-marriage programs. In my school we had such a program, and the general consensus(at least among my friends and I) was that they were essentially breaks from being in class and to be ignored/derided.

The anti-drug programs had the same issue, which I've seen summarized quite well in the statement of "Once they catch you skewing the truth, they'll probably just throw out everything you try to tell them". By the time the programs arrived in our classes there were several people who were already having or had had sex, and they often disagreed(and their friends would generally take their word over that of some random people they didn't know) with several things that the program-people said, which resulted in a quickly-spreading "these people don't know what they're talking about" attitude.

It didn't really help that they basically said 'protection doesn't work, wait instead', which I think can be compared to telling a person with a BB gun that they shouldn't use it, while making an offhand comment about how safety gear wouldn't help to prevent injuries while using it.

[KnightDisciple]

This. I'm old enough now to have watched many of my friends get divorced and the top 3 reasons are money, sex, and having children, not necessarily in that order. Sex seems to be a biggie when it comes to divorce (keep in mind when I was growing up you were expected to remain celibate till marriage). The couples I've known who went that route quickly discovered one of them had a vastly higher sex drive than the other, one was into some kink the other found repulsive, or one of them had far more emotional hangups than the other over the act. And instead of discussing it and coming to terms with it, their upbringing lead them to simply repress and ignore until they exploded one day, and then the divorce comes quickly after.

Not that I should be surprised. When I was in high school most coaches, parents, male teachers told the boys "Say what you have to, to get what you want, get in, and get out before she gets pregnant or finds a way to trap you." Girls were told by parents and teachers "Say no until you can find one you can tolerate, and who will earn enough to support you so you don't have to work, and then get pregnant as fast as possible so he'll have to marry you". 22 years later they have the gall to be surprised when their children's relationships have all failed, yet insist their grandchildren be taught the same self destructive behaviors. Out of all the people I remember form high school I still occasionally see, I'd say two thirds of them have been divorced. A good chunk of them more than once. Several others burned out, surrendered to depression or alcoholism and never got married at all. Granted I live in a small midwestern town so that experience is prolly alien to a lot of you.

It sounds like there's a deeper issue than sex going on there: Communication. I'd bet the same goes for money and kids, too.

[pendell]

Hmm .. I have opinions, but maybe better than spouting opinions I should simply ask some questions and get some facts instead :).

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

3) What impact did your education have on that decision?

For myself -- Although I was raised religious, I'm afraid I fell from that because I really, really wanted sex bad. Happily, my social awkwardness discouraged 99% of any potential experimentation ... and the rest, I ain't tellin' :smallamused:.

Later, when college rolled around, I decided to straighten up and fly right and start waiting for the right person rather than doing all I could in the pursuit of , erm, happiness.

Both decisions were made on what I , personally, believed. I received comprehensive sex ed which I mostly ignored. It didn't actually make any difference to my pursuit before or my repentence later because I was young and believed that , whatever the book said, it couldn't possibly happen to me, no sir.

So in my case sex ed was irrelevant to my decisions. The first choice was made because i listened to my body, the second because I listened to my conscience, but the public school system didn't get much of a look-in either way. I'm afraid I didn't respect them very much.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ShortOne]

Hmm .. I have opinions, but maybe better than spouting opinions I should simply ask some questions and get some facts instead :).

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

3) What impact did your education have on that decision?


Edited out the 4th question. Apologies.

EDIT: And my answers:

1) No.

2) Comprehensive.

3) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Please define further.

[Scarlet Knight]

It would be nice to know how these stacked up to cases 10, 20, 50 or 80 years ago etc, or if they are rising or falling right now. Right now it sort of lacks context- just a number without any other numbers to compare to.

Took a quick look at the CDC site; old numbers were not readily available. But compared to the mid 90's , std's dropped steadily until the turn of the century where they began to increase steadily and are at their highest per 100,000 people in 2009 for the last 15 years.

[Knaight]

Might as well cover my background some, as it is somewhat relevant. Ish.
1) Not married, don't want to marry, haven't had sex, don't want to have sex. Most certainly don't ever want children.
2) It wasn't abstinence only, but "comprehensive" is a term that gives it more credit than it is due. Contraceptives were covered, as were STDs, but it basically came down to "use these, they work about this often, don't use these together" and a scare campaign.
3) None. Being asexual, point 1 was basically inevitable. As for not wanting to marry, that had a lot more to do with cultural analysis than education.

[Eldan]

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

I technically am, but that's for lack of opportunity, not choice.



2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

Pretty comprehensive. I remember that my father gave me a picture book in kindergarten which explained the most important aspects and explained the basics to me. The more in-depth stuff, including most of the, hmm, mechanical aspects came later. There was also sex-ed in school, for the first time in 5th grade, then again in 9th grade. Both times with picture material, mechanical and emotional aspects, diseases and how to prevent them, and pretty good explanations on what problems can await a teenager who has unprotected sex.


3) What impact did your education have on that decision?


If I could have sex, I probably would. I would also use protection.


Edit: Atheist with atheist parents in a vaguely catholic-ish area. Catholic-ish means that while a large majority of the people write "catholic" on their census forms, no one actually goes to church except maybe on Christmas. We had one hour of Religion per week in elementary school, which I mostly ignored.

[Cristo Meyers]

Granted I live in a small midwestern town so that experience is prolly alien to a lot of you.

Nope, sounds all to sadly familiar.


1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

3) What impact did your education have on that decision?


1) Tried to be. Didn't pan out that way.

2) Pseudo-comprehensive. We talked about protection and the like, but it was mostly abstinence, abstinence, abstinence.

Didn't help that it was my aunt teaching the class...

3) Not much, really. But that's because it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

[Feytalist]

Eh, our sex ed was pretty comprehensive, but came at too late a stage to be any use, really. Second-last year of high school, if I remember correctly.

By that time I had already made my own choices, so it didn't really have an impact on my decisions.

I'm not abstinent by any measure, but only in a stable, long-term relationship.

[The Succubus]

1) Tricky. I am not married, no do I plan to be for at least a couple of years yet. To begin with I wanted to remain celibate until I found the girl that was right for me. The years passed and this belief slowly eroded away yet by happenstance, it worked out that I did save until I found the girl that was right for me. :smallsmile:

2) Pretty comprehensive. I live in the UK, so religous influence is not as strong here as it is in the US. Some very basic sex ed in primary school, more in depth in secondary school (in PSE classes we actually had open discussions and debates on the subject). In college we had a one off class on it and a pretty good college support network for that side of things. It wasn't perfect but one thing it was was non-judgemental. Abstinence was presented as just another alternative, like LGB is.

3) It reaffirmed stuff I already knew from basic biology but the main lesson I took from it was: make your own mind up, which is pretty much what I did.

4) My religion....heh. I'm not a believer in anything but I'm prepared to keep an open mind. My morals and logic influenced my decision a lot more than any peer pressure/religious influence could have done.

[dehro]

meh... sex ed in italy is virtually non-existent.. limited to the extent to which a biology teacher is willing to delve into the subject on her own initiative, when the human body is being studied... reproductive sistems and all. STDs, various contraceptives and so on are not covered.. why this is.. there's a great deal of reasons, mostly historical and cultural (a side-note which may give some indication is that not so long ago a law was proposed and rejected to have catholic crosses removed from each and every class where they currently hang just above the blackboards.. to debate whether it's the only factor or is in fact relevant at all, would be going too far into "not suited for this forum" subjects)..

as for myself, I'm jewish, which had little or nothing to do with my sex ed.. my mother is a rather independent Dutch Jew who never married the 2 main men in her life, and taught me all I needed to know (the proper way, calling things with their names and suggesting I pack condoms when I left for my first holiday alone..I was 15!).
I suppose there's a reason the family motto is "a dirty mind is a joy for ever"

my dad on the other hand is a non practicing catholic, and italian.. who was rather happy to find out my mum had already taken care of that side of education by the time he thought of it. I do know however, he's given my little brother (of 15) "the talk" when it became apparent he had somehow managed to find himself a girlfriend. I have reason to believe little brother never got further than ... it's called second base, right?.. before they broke up.
the generation before my dad would probably not mention anything about it, except for those "enlightened":smallannoyed: fathers who would take their "of age" sons to the nearest brothel, so they would get to learn the practicalities first hand.

by the time my father came of age, brothels were illegal in Italy, and have been ever since.
so..yeah.. most people in Italy kinda stumble into it, unless they have decent parents who are not afraid to explain matters, or rather forward thinking teachers who expose themselves to some possibility for criticism..

on a side-note..I have the feeling that generally speaking, geeks, nerds or ..well.. I don't really know what the accepted term of the week is..I suppose I just mean "us".. tend to be better informed than most, on these matters.. to the point of being able, on demand, to produce pie charts and statistic datas about STDs, penis envy/length/malfunctions, and so on. which apparently is a turn-off when you try doing just that in the bedroom

[Syka]

1. Until I was about 19, that was the plan. At that point, I'd been thinking a lot about the subject. I eventually decided, whilst not in any relationship, that I would wait until A. a pregnancy would not adversely effect my education and B. I was in a long term committed relationship. It would appear I did end up waiting for marriage, so to speak, as my current partner is also my first and, as mentioned, we are essentially married.

2. Psuedo-comprehensive. They told us about condoms and birth control and all, and showed us pictures of STD's. And basically said if you have sex you WILL get pregnant and you WILL get an STD and you WILL be heartbroken forever and sex will never ever ever be the same with anyone else and do you really want to do that to your future spouse? No mention of how to actually get access to condoms or other forms of birth control. I don't even recall them mentioning us lady's going to the gynecologist. Although we did get educated on breast cancer (apparently the boys got penile cancer).

They did this in a class most people took as freshmen, but a good portion were older (sophomores to seniors). Even aside from that, I knew many of them had already had sex and it was an entirely moot point, not too mention the abstinence folks who came to talk had to have been incredibly insulting to those students who had already had sex and/or were not heterosexual.

3. Absolutely none. My mom was very open and I got good education from her, and I supplemented with the internet for information on STI's, how to prevent them, and pregnancy stopping stuff.

4. I am Christian. I was more...not really conservative, per se (I've always been fairly liberal), but definitely more involved when I was younger. My mom asked why I decided to not wait and I told her that, even if I DID get married before having sex, what does that really mean today? If I am in a long term, committed relationship with no intention of it ending, why would God object to more love in the world? I cannot see my God punishing me for how I have conducted my relationship with Oz, by any means.




As an aside, one of my friends from college had really, really, really crappy sex ed. When I gave her condoms to use with her new boyfriend (I was the condom distributor of my friends, despite being the only virgin at the time, lol), she...well. She basically said she was told that condoms don't actually do anything by her teachers. u.u I'm pretty sure she was on the Pill, but it was so sad to hear public school spreading such misinformation. Like, she was seriously convinced they don't protect against any STI's...


EDIT: dehro, I got the condom talk at 15, including a description of how to put it on correctly, by my mom as well. XD

I do agree with geeks/nerds/what not being more educated in general. Both Oz and I had researched various aspects of sex loooong before it was a reality. I was the go-to person for advice with my friends, on everything from odd things happening after sex to birth control options, to any number of things. Kinda funny, actually.

[Telonius]

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

No; and depends on when you're asking. Before around 16 or so, yes, trying to be; after that, trying not to be; succeeding only when I stopped trying.

2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

Abstinence-only, as far as the opinion on whether or not you should have it; premarital sex, contraception, and homosexuality weren't covered at all. (I did go to a Catholic all-boys high school). They did go through a pretty thorough and complete discussion of the biology of it, covering both male and female reproductive systems, how to care for yourself, general signs of STDs and other reproductive issues, full discussion on fetal development, that kind of thing. Looking back, I can't say that there was anything exactly incorrect about what they taught us; the facts they presented were pretty much right on. It's just that they didn't give a complete picture.

3) What impact did your education have on that decision?

Full answer here would be against forum rules; but in a nutshell, my full education didn't just include things I learned in the sex ed classroom. It also included ethics, theology, and psychology courses (in high school, as well as college); and of course all the stuff you don't learn in the classroom. The sum total of all that amounted to: don't lie to yourself, treat everybody around you with as much kindness and respect as you can, and take responsibility for your own actions. That way of thinking informed my entire approach to the decision. The facts they presented about sex, as such, didn't have much to do with my decision.

4) Did/does your religion/the religion in which you were raised affect your decisions in this regard?

... already covered, I think.

[Scarlet Knight]

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

No, I was not.


2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

I learned the way everyone else did...behind a factory from a porn mag swiped by a friend ; that conflicted with the parental message of "good people wait".


3) What impact did your education have on that decision?
Well, it was grounded more in fantasy than reality. The stories lead me to believe that women wanted sex , but would say "no" because they should say "no" .... unless she was a free love hippie...

[pendell]

Everybody keeps answering question 4. Where did that come from? *I* didn't ask it. I only asked the first three.



3) I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Please define further?


Basically, I'm trying to relate question 1 to question 2. Given the fact of your experience, and what you were taught, how do they relate to each other? There's a great deal of hullaballoo about what kids should or should not be taught, and I'm asking the anecdotal question if it really makes a difference.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[THAC0]

1. No...ish. I did marry my first and only, though.
2. None, in HS. Parents were pretty open and had books and stuff. Comprehensive in college.
3. I'll admit freely that I felt pressured to have sex, because everyone was all "Go have sex if you want!! Everyone's doing it!"
4. No

[Syka]

Everybody keeps answering question 4. Where did that come from? *I* didn't ask it. I only asked the first three.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

ShortOne requested the addition of a question four a few posts back.

[Objection]

Hmm .. I have opinions, but maybe better than spouting opinions I should simply ask some questions and get some facts instead :).

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

3) What impact did your education have on that decision?


I'd like to add

4) Did/does your religion/the religion in which you were raised affect your decisions in this regard?

1) Right now I'm abstaining indefinitely. I know I used to be abstinent before marriage because I believed in what I can only describe as fairy tale relationships, but I dropped that idea a few years ago.

2) I received some in primary school but any memory of what was in it is vague, as is any memory of receiving any sex education in secondary school. What I know about sex mostly comes from either stuff my mum has told me or stuff I happen to have found on the internet (and I don't mean porn). Oddly, I feel like I know more about contraception than I know about how one actually has sexual intercourse.

3) The impact on my current stance regarding abstinence is probably partly caused by me taking away little from any sex education I had at school, coupled with the last statement I made in answer 2. But the main reason I'm currently abstaining indefinitely is because I do not like touching or being touched by another person. I can tolerate a handshake or high five, and a hug from someone who I'm emotionally close too such as my mother is literally borderline. Anything beyond that is uncomfortable to say the least, and from what I understand, sexual intercourse involves a lot of body contact beyond any level I named here.

4) I'm not a particularly religious person, so religion's impact on my decisions is either negligible or not there.

[Orzel]

Can I just say that the idea of having a housewife gives me weird feelings. Someone staying home all day doing chores, cooking, and things of that sort... is just not desired.

I had an ex-girlfriend that came to me with the "housewife" idea. Now I was halfway to dumping her already for other reason but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. It took me a week to end it (because I already paid the price and her price....) but I did say something like "No you would be getting a job!"

It is probably because I grew up with the only people being home during the day being grandparents and nannies. Housewives are just unnatural to me.



But for the questions,
1) Not at all.
2) My aunt is a guidance counselor or something and I read all her books at age 10. So any education I received afterward was ignored as I was a smart-mouth know it all.
3) Not much. I had pretty much figured that I wouldn't be getting married for a very long while so I decided not to deprive myself.

[NOhara24]

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

3) What impact did your education have on that decision?



1) No, I wasn't abstinent, and I didn't try to be.

2) Sex-ed for me was actually really in-depth. I can safely say that I'm proud of the sex-ed program in my county. They beat us over the head with all kinds of diseases and stories of teen pregnancy and said "If you're willing to take that risk...you'd better use a condom. Of course, you could just not do it and not have to worry about any of the diseases or risk of pregnancy..."

3) None, really. I'm still active, and I chose not to wait. I can safely say that it didn't take my schooling for me to realize that I should use a condom.

[Telonius]

It is probably because I grew up with the only people being home during the day being grandparents and nannies. Housewives are just unnatural to me.


I was going to say something about this earlier - I don't have (and to be honest, don't want) a housewife, but we do have a house-granny! Mother-in-law lives with us, and looks after the toddler in the morning. (My wife works part-time). She doesn't pay rent or have to be in an old folks' home, we don't have to send the kid to daycare. Works out pretty well for everybody.

[Mono Vertigo]

1. Still unmarried. I never believed in abstinence as its own desirable value. Only was abstinent due to a lack of desire to have sex... and that shouldn't even be called "abstinence" in that case.
2. Good question. At school, it was... rather comprehensive, I guess, though lacking in several aspects; we knew many details about the pill and pregnancy, for example, but the only real information about abortion came from... two schoolmates who had selected the subject to give a talk about it in religion classes(!!!), and they were very opposed to it. The rest came from my mother, who's generous about the information, and my own consultation of other sources.
3. Almost none, for the reason given in 1.

[Talya]

1) If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?
Uh, hell no? i've been sexually active since 14 years old, with no regrets 24 years later.



2) What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?
Comprehensive, but let's face it, by the time Sex-Ed came along, I could have been teaching the class.



3) What impact did your education have on that decision?

None?


4) Did/does your religion/the religion in which you were raised affect your decisions in this regard?
Possibly. I did the exact opposite of what my parents wanted me to do, that's for sure. For reference, I'm a "Preacher's Kid." Dad was giving the Sunday sermons.

[Eldan]

Do you really get sex ed that late? Apart from what I got from my parents, we started doing it in school when I was around ten.

[CoffeeIncluded]

1. I've never even had a boyfriend or kissed anyone, so I can't answer that question. However, I do know that I plan to wait until I know that the guy I'm eventually with loves me as much as I would love him. I couldn't put myself in such a vulnerable state otherwise.

2. Our sex-ed course was kinda rushed but it wasn't abstinence only (the general tone was, "We'd prefer it if you waited, but if you don't here's how to be safe,") and covered the different types of birth control and diseases. There was a lot of emphasis on anatomy. However, one of the health teachers...let's just say he claimed that childbirth doesn't hurt and leave it at that. :smallmad: Honestly, I learned more about the specifics; what can and should be done and the like online. Thank you love of biology and desire to enter the world of medicine!

3. Quite a bit. I try to plan things out as much as I can because I have ADHD and pretty crappy self-control when left to my own devices; I've been training myself to be disciplined because I don't want to lose control of my life. And I really don't want to put myself at risk of pregnancy and diseases. I can't have a kid when I'm in college or veterinary school!

4. I'm Jewish, but my religion didn't really have any effect on this.

[Talya]

Do you really get sex ed that late? Apart from what I got from my parents, we started doing it in school when I was around ten.

The detailed stuff, yeah, in grade nine. We got some really basic sex ed in biology during elementary school, but nothing detailed.

That was...1987 when I started high school.

[Orzel]

I was going to say something about this earlier - I don't have (and to be honest, don't want) a housewife, but we do have a house-granny! Mother-in-law lives with us, and looks after the toddler in the morning. (My wife works part-time). She doesn't pay rent or have to be in an old folks' home, we don't have to send the kid to daycare. Works out pretty well for everybody.

I was watched by a housegranny and a babysitter aunt as a child. The idea of a non-retired person staying him and watching only their children and taking care of the house is just strange. I wont knock someone for doing it but I will never understand taking that choice.

Its a mild turn off for me. Typically I make up a story to get a woman's opinion of it around the 3rd date or whenever the Future question pops up. It is on the very long list of questions needed to be answered before I ever get married.

Oh and 4) Nope. My family wasn't religious at all until after I already did it. And my view on sex was locked in at age 10.

[Knaight]

Do you really get sex ed that late? Apart from what I got from my parents, we started doing it in school when I was around ten.
It was 9th grade at the earliest for my district. Which would have been 2007-2008, in my case. Now, if the rest of you would commence with the feeling old...
:smallamused:

[Telonius]

The detailed stuff, yeah, in grade nine. We got some really basic sex ed in biology during elementary school, but nothing detailed.

That was...1987 when I started high school.

Pennsylvania in the early 90s. It was a long time ago, but I think it was in 8th or 9th grade for the extremely basic stuff in science class - sexual vs asexual reproduction, stuff like that. 10th grade (about 16 years old) for the more detailed/useful/human stuff. We got it in Health class, sandwiched in between the dangers of smoking, drinking, and drugs,* "proper nutrition,"** and about one afternoon acknowledging that mental illness did, in fact, exist.***

*Trying any of the three will ruin your whole life forever, except that alcohol is okay after you turn 21.
** Air quotes there for a reason.
*** After class let out, we spent the rest of the week trying to classify our teachers and classmates into the various types of mental illness. I think my group of friends were able to find somebody for every category except postpartum depression.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If you are reading this thread, were you abstinent before marriage, or at least try to be?

No, although I wasn't actively seeking sexual gratification: I just don't turn away from things that feel like they should happen. That being said, I must admit that the whole "abstinence until marriage" thing strikes me as...well, I'd say "obsolete," but I don't think it has anything to do with the progression of time. Instead, the concept of virgin vs. non-virgin is really only one of physical states, and, while sex is tangentially related to love, it's not the same: if I find someone I want to marry, it isn't really going to matter to me either way, as, in my mind, sex is one of two things: a fun, physical-connection based primal activity (I suppose this would be the "vulgar" definition, if you want to call it that), or a greater expression of interpersonal emotional connection taken into the physical realm. Personally, I don't dabble in the former, as I place a much higher value on emotional connection than I do physical, but I understand that not everyone ascribes to this philosophy. I don't think either view is bad, but I really don't understand the mindset that the latter form must wait until marriage. The human mind is capable of sustaining multiple emotional relationships at once (for example...almost everyone has people they love who they aren't involved with), and the physical seems like it's on a lower philosophical level than that, and thus that it's either less valuable than emotional connections, or that it just shouldn't have to be tied to "true love."

What kind of sex education did you receive? Abstinence-only, comprehensive, other?

Fairly comprehensive, although, like most Middle School and High School students, we really only remembered enough to pass the tests.

What impact did your education have on that decision?

Probably a great deal, but it definitely wasn't sex-ed related education that did it. I'm largely a student of philosophy (as my rant above may have indicated), and human interaction has always fascinated me, so I've read a lot about it. I think my liberal, largely philosophy-focused education definitely had a huge part in creating the sort of environment that my mind seems to be.

Did/does your religion/the religion in which you were raised affect your decisions in this regard?

Yes, but only because my "religion" is more of a belief system, unique (from my experience) to myself, and based largely around my thoughts and musings on the human condition and how we interact with the world around us.

[Kuma Da]

Took a quick look at the CDC site; old numbers were not readily available. But compared to the mid 90's , std's dropped steadily until the turn of the century where they began to increase steadily and are at their highest per 100,000 people in 2009 for the last 15 years.

Valid, but it's also important to look at the distribution of these numbers. Check STD rates in areas that implement comprehensive safe sex programs versus, say, Africa.

Also note that documentation of these conditions has improved over time, which came be reflected in a slight increase in numbers observed, depending on how the study data is collated. This does not account for the entire increase (there is an AIDS epidemic going on in Africa right now,) but it can influence the numbers.

Not to drag politics into this, but we did change presidents around the turn of the century, too. There was a slight shift towards increased Abstinence Only programs, although whether this was furthering the spread of STDs or combating it I don't have the statistics to definitively say.