Love & Sex

[Americano]

Mod: This thread was hived off from the "Nice People" thread.

A bachelor who doesn't live off by himself is not a hermit. That's just a bachelor.

Yes but...

Not so true... actually.

Perhaps when you trust someone enough to commit to them you feel that you can trust them with anything and:

I know MFC is about to rain unholy hell down on my ass, but sometimes sex is just sex.

Agreed, sex is sex. Though in the LSD days sometimes far more expansive.

[Margot]

I know MFC is about to rain unholy hell down on my ass, but sometimes sex is just sex.

You know I'm right. Don't fight it, baby.

[Americano]

You know I'm right. Don't fight it, baby.

Hopefully he'll fight it.

[Donkey]

Hopefully he'll fight it.
Vigorously and, thus far, without much success.

Of course the same can be said for her. :p

[Michael]

Vigorously and, thus far, without much success.
Yes, but that was before the cavalry rode in... :D

[Margot]

Yes, but that was before the cavalry rode in... :D

I could hold my own against an army. :p

[Michael]

I could hold my own against an army. :p

Sound the bugles! :D

I know MFC is about to rain unholy hell down on my ass, but sometimes sex is just sex.

Indeed. A significant number of humans appear to seek out anonymous sex.

I don't think there is any connection between sex and love at all. One is a physical act, the other is an emotional state. They go together like oil and water.

[Americano]

Sound the bugles! :D



Indeed. A significant number of humans appear to seek out anonymous sex.

I don't think there is any connection between sex and love at all. One is a physical act, the other is an emotional state. They go together like oil and water.

As evidenced in the US by its 50% divorce rate in the face of bible thumper doctrine of no marriage no sex.

[Donkey]

I don't think there is any connection between sex and love at all. One is a physical act, the other is an emotional state. They go together like oil and water.
Oh see I disagree there a lot. I think that sex where love is involved is quite different than just bangin' somebody.

I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that high emotional involvement changes the dynamic of sexual relations.

[Americano]

Oh see I disagree there a lot. I think that sex where love is involved is quite different than just bangin' somebody.

I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that high emotional involvement changes the dynamic of sexual relations.

Love and lust are both highly emotional, producing the same sexual result. One's just a longer lasting emotion (sometimes).

[dilettante]

I don't think there is any connection between sex and love at all. One is a physical act, the other is an emotional state. They go together like oil and water.

Perhaps, but in practice it seems that most people aren't very good at keeping physical and emotional connections separate; not for long, anyway. Our emotional connections have strong impacts on our physical interaction and visa-versa. And, on the whole, I'd say this is probably a good thing.

[Margot]

I’m not really sure what this thread was about- but I like that we just usurped it.

Firstly, who would want meaningless sex in the first place? I mean, seriously, I use the word “meaningless” for some very select things- homework, for instance. And I’d apply “meaningless” to both homework and sex in the same way. Of course I read the required reading (see: “I didn’t get tested, and I don’t plan on it”), Yeah, sure I proof read it (see: “protection? Whatever, I can pull out”), I took this class for its meaningful and insightful message, not because it was the only class left in my major and I’m trying to graduate here (see: “yeah, you were the only thing in the bar with the genitals I like and it’s dollar beer night, so let’s do this thing!”). If that sounds douche-y, well, it is. But lots of people take the word “meaningless” to its most literal and graphic extent. Want proof? Just go to textsfromlastnight.com or tuckermax.com.

One would hope that any interaction between two humans would be open, honest, and conscientious of the other party’s needs, stipulations, and concerns. “Meaningless” is none of that.

But wait, you say, the word “meaningless” has yet to be used here. You are right, so, semantics and (guilt-ridden) homework metaphors aside we approach the topics of “sex for the sake of sex” and “sex is sex.”

Estrogen and Testosterone are terrifying things. So much of our lives are based on these little chemicals, how much of them our bodies produce, and where it’s all going! While estrogen is busy making me pissy every month for a week, testosterone is busy in boy brains beefing up the sexy-time cortex. During the gender-assignment process of a mammalian fetus (the 8th week in humans) a big ole surge of testosterone is delivered to the fetal brain (if the magic eight ball has promised “boy”) (side: did you know that the default sex for birds is male instead of female?) [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6973/full/427390a.html] (this article says that there may be more to it, as well). The testosterone surge basically kills off some of the cells in the communication centers of the brain and boosts the aggressive centers. In fact, too much testosterone in the womb can cause the child to have a smaller vocabulary and an inability to make eye contact (see: men are four times more likely than women to be autistic) [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4981-too-much-testosterone-blights-social-skills.html].

For the most part (mega-doses of the opposite sex-hormone to fetuses aside), women’s brains are fundamentally different from mens. A man’s brain is 9% bigger (on average) than a female brain, though both have the same number of brain cells (meaning the female brain is more dense), and each are designed to process information differently. Women are biologically more adept than men at picking up on subtle facial expressions, emotions, and are generally far more empathetic.

All thanks to sex hormones, we are unequivocally different. We think differently, process information differently, and handle emotional experiences differently. So generally when women have interpersonal experiences they assign to them emotional responses. Sex included.
Sex is highly emotional anyway: excitement, joy, maybe even a little fear. Yes, they’re low spectrum, primal emotions, but they’re there. Sex without excitement, is, well, is something you should get your doctor to look at, actually... Meaning is inherent to the act. That on top of the incredibly personal experience of sex (what with the strange sounds and faces and closeness...) makes for a potentially incredibly meaningful experience, at least on the part of the woman.

That is, of course, totally natural. Loveless sex may be, but it is never “just sex.”

There are other aspects as well that should not be disregarded. Take, for instance, its inherent predatory nature. Not only are we in constant competition for sexual partners (observe the similarities between the “wing man” and the first-time buck battling with everyone else in the herd for some nookie), but we are in constant competition during sex. Sex is, by it’s very nature, an invasion on the part of one partner. There will always be a shtuper and a shtupee. Someone always has to be on top, as it were. Someone always has to be in charge. Inequity is fundamental to the act. (I mean, seriously, the penis isn’t that hard to find- very much unlike the clitoris, which seems to elude everyone, their dog and whatever they’re trying to poke it with...)

But seriously, mantises lose their heads, dolphins rape each other, flatworms and snails have to stab each other, giraffes get hounded and pestered, macaques wait until their enemies are orgasming to attack each other and some species have to give chase before they copulate. And, as if to prove my point for me, humans get off on the predatory aspect of sex as well (just wade through all the S&M sites I had to in order to research this bit...) It’s not bad or wrong, but fear and sexual arousal are handled by the same part of the brain and are impressively closely related. [http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/30/30-strangest-animal-mating-habits/], [fergodsake just google what you don't find there].

Finally, we are social creatures. We discuss what we do, we do who we do, and then we discuss what we do with who we do. And observe the proliferation of stigmatism associated with “casual sex.” Thanks to religion (mostly), and sexism and socializing there is a fundamental image of what “casual sex” is and what it means. Suddenly the aforementioned predatory inequities are compounded. Men become “players”, their antics condoned and applauded (for the most part), and women become “sluts”, “whores” (which in itself can become a plethora of derogatory slurs though the tactful use of modifiers like “crack”), and “skanks”. We may not all kiss and tell- but we also simply cannot navigate through society without encountering this double standard. Sex cannot simply be sex because we, as a collective society undermine that very fact.

The only way that sex can ever be simply sex is in a society like that of the Bonobo apes. Sex is open, without stigma and used for absolutely everything. If we lived in a society like theirs our friend Donkey wouldn’t have to study conflict resolution- he’d just have sex to solve problems. They don’t favor sexual partners, or form attachments- the only relationships that seem to be taboo are mother-son relationships. It is a constant orgy and a society in which sex is so meaningful it has the luxury of becoming meaningless.

[Lily]

There is no safe sex anymore. I remember when AIDS first hit the American news and how I found it ironic that the very act of procreation could, once again, kill us. Of course, I expected modern medicine would soon find a cure, a vaccine...

[Michael]

Kegel exercises should help.
At risk of a thread derailment, Kegel exercises are very good, but seem to take years of such exercises to have any effect.

I'm not aware of increased urine flow being one of the benefits! ;)

[Margot]

At risk of a thread derailment, Kegel exercises are very good, but seem to take years of such exercises to have any effect.

I'm not aware of increased urine flow being one of the benefits! ;)

Ah, my man, they have infinite benefits- including control. Even the most nervous of urinary tracts can be tamed. Do them every day or regret it!

[Michael]

Ah, my man, they have infinite benefits- including control. Even the most nervous of urinary tracts can be tamed. Do them every day or regret it!
I suspect (and have strong reason to believe) that nervous urinary tracts are a product of psychology, not physiology.

Shy-pee syndrome is always identified as triggered by the presence of other persons. Take away the other people and the problem goes away.

Ergo, Kegels won't do squat for shy-pee syndrome. ;)

[Michael]

There is no safe sex anymore. I remember when AIDS first hit the American news and how I found it ironic that the very act of procreation could, once again, kill us. Of course, I expected modern medicine would soon find a cure, a vaccine...

Personally, I think that fundraising is too profitable and the institutional culture too entrenched for the "cancer research", "AIDS research" and "heart disease research" complexes ever to resolve that which they purport to seek.

Way too many people would lose their jobs with an AIDS vaccine. Way too many people would lose their jobs with a cure for cancer. These jobs are very highly paid and very prestigious.

Lets face it, diseases are VERY PROFITABLE things. And they are way more profitable when they are believed to be uncurable.

No doubt about it - there are one heck of a lot of institutional barriers and vested interests to expect cures for diseases from our corrupt medical establishment. Failure is just way too profitable for them to abandon that enterprise.

[dilettante]

Personally, I think that fundraising is too profitable and the institutional culture too entrenched for the "cancer research", "AIDS research" and "heart disease research" complexes ever to resolve that which they purport to seek.

Way too many people would lose their jobs with an AIDS vaccine. Way too many people would lose their jobs with a cure for cancer. These jobs are very highly paid and very prestigious.

Lets face it, diseases are VERY PROFITABLE things. And they are way more profitable when they are believed to be uncurable.

No doubt about it - there are one heck of a lot of institutional barriers and vested interests to expect cures for diseases from our corrupt medical establishment. Failure is just way too profitable for them to abandon that enterprise.

I don't think I can be quite that cynical.
On the one hand, I don't think researchers are that greedy and evil, and on the other hand I think you underestimate the greediness of corporations.

Disease research might be profitable, but I have trouble believing any company centered around healthcare and treatment wouldn't jump at the chance of patenting an AIDS vaccine or a cure for cancer. Sure, it would terminate funding for lots of research, but why should they care? They'd have a cure for freak'n cancer! That's a gold mine right there; screw the competition and their research funding! And not only are they rich; they're heroes!

Or take the perspective of an individual scientist or CEO. Sure, research into an "incurable" disease offers a steady trickle of funding and prestige for you and everybody else, but if you're the one to find the cure, then you get a huge deluge of money and/or prestige! I just don't see individuals turning that done for the sake of the "industry", to say nothing of feeling a debt to mankind.
In other words, to be selfish enough to not cure one of these diseases when you know you could, you'd have to be selfless with regard to larger health-research industry.

[Michael]

I don't think I can be quite that cynical.
On the one hand, I don't think researchers are that greedy and evil, and on the other hand I think you underestimate the greediness of corporations.

Disease research might be profitable, but I have trouble believing any company centered around healthcare and treatment wouldn't jump at the chance of patenting an AIDS vaccine or a cure for cancer. Sure, it would terminate funding for lots of research, but why should they care? They'd have a cure for freak'n cancer! That's a gold mine right there; screw the competition and their research funding! And not only are they rich; they're heroes!

Or take the perspective of an individual scientist or CEO. Sure, research into an "incurable" disease offers a steady trickle of funding and prestige for you and everybody else, but if you're the one to find the cure, then you get a huge deluge of money and/or prestige! I just don't see individuals turning that done for the sake of the "industry", to say nothing of feeling a debt to mankind.
In other words, to be selfish enough to not cure one of these diseases when you know you could, you'd have to be selfless with regard to larger health-research industry.

Average annual cost of treating HIV (per patient) is between $14,000 and $34,000.

Source (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/conditions/07/10/aids.costs/)

You telling me that a vaccine could earn big Pharma even MORE revenues than that? I strongly doubt it. Please note that those figures are PER ANNUM PER PATIENT.

Or how about colorectal cancer? Annual cost of treatment (per patient) is estimated between $35,000 and $80,000 per year.

Source (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OkV1ps3XC4cJ:www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/report_card/docs/CRC_Cost_Fact_Sheet.doc+Average+Annual+Cost+of+Col on+Cancer+Treatments&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

So what were you saying about greedy corporations? Those high costs lead to some very high profit margins for big Pharma. I'd say big Pharma has some very big incentives to avoid 'cures'. Cures are not profitable as treatment.

How much profit does big Pharma make on polio vaccines? Near as I can tell from surfing the net for an answer is about $5 per immunization - that's revenue, not profit. Polio vaccine for everyone in the USA is thus worth about $1.5 billion. That's peanuts compared to these other figures.

[dilettante]

Average annual cost of treating HIV (per patient) is between $14,000 and $34,000.

Source (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/conditions/07/10/aids.costs/)

You telling me that a vaccine could earn big Pharma even MORE revenues than that? I strongly doubt it. Please note that those figures are PER ANNUM.

Or how about colorectal cancer? Annual cost of treatment (per patient) is estimated between $35,000 and $80,000 per year.

Source (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OkV1ps3XC4cJ:www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/report_card/docs/CRC_Cost_Fact_Sheet.doc+Average+Annual+Cost+of+Col on+Cancer+Treatments&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

So what were you saying about greeding corporations? Those high costs lead to some very high profit margins for big Pharma. I'd say big Pharma has some very big incentives to avoid 'cures'. Cures are not profitable as treatment.

What I'm saying is that I don't think "big Pharma" is a single entity or that it can rely on its constituent members to be self-sacrificing when it comes to prestige and money.
At the end of the day, its individuals who make decisions, and I don't think the individual scientist, CEO, or board-member giving a flying fig about the future of "Big Pharma" if he had the chance to be THE man who brought the cure to cancer to the world. If he has that golden ticket in his hand, what does he care about the future of the industry?
For a CEO (or lead scientist) to turn down such a golden opportunity to not only dominate the market, but also to be an international hero, all for the sake of keeping "Big Pharma" in business presumes some sort of bizarre, self-sacrificing loyalty that I don't think exists.

[Michael]

What I'm saying is that I don't think "big Pharma" is a single entity or that it can rely on its constituent members to be self-sacrificing when it comes to prestige and money.
At the end of the day, its individuals who make decisions, and I don't think the individual scientist, CEO, or board-member giving a flying fig about the future of "Big Pharma" if he had the chance to be THE man who brought the cure to cancer to the world. If he has that golden ticket in his hand, what does he care about the future of the industry?
For a CEO (or lead scientist) to turn down such a golden opportunity to not only dominate the market, but also to be an international hero, all for the sake of keeping "Big Pharma" in business presumes some sort of bizarre, self-sacrificing loyalty that I don't think exists.
Big Pharma has, up until the last three years, been the single most profitable industrial sector in the US economy for the last two decades.

There's lots of fat money sloshing around there to reward loyalty.

[The Drunk Guy]

I suspect (and have strong reason to believe) that nervous urinary tracts are a product of psychology, not physiology.

Shy-pee syndrome is always identified as triggered by the presence of other persons. Take away the other people and the problem goes away.

Ergo, Kegels won't do squat for shy-pee syndrome. ;)
Maybe. I used to have major trouble peeing in front of people, but now I can go freely. Might have been Kegels, might be the little lady loves my cock. Either way, I piss where ever and when ever I want. :D

[Margot]

Maybe. I used to have major trouble peeing in front of people, but now I can go freely. Might have been Kegels, might be the little lady loves my cock. Either way, I piss where ever and when ever I want. :D

dude... we were talking in metaphor.
:p

[Michael]

dude... we were talking in metaphor.
:p
OMG :eek:

I just have to ask... what 'precisely' are kegels a metaphor for? :ummm:

[The Drunk Guy]

dude... we were talking in metaphor.
:p
So was I. :fence:

[The Drunk Girl]

Sound the bugles! :D

I don't think there is any connection between sex and love at all.
One is a physical act, the other is an emotional state. They go together like oil and water.

:ummm: Maybe it's the estrogen talking, but I think there is a significant connection here between sex and love. "Casual" sex never really worked for me. Sure, I would be into it when it first would get started, but the longer it would go on the more disconnected I would become. I think just about every casual experience I encountered ended up with me saying, "this isn't working," getting dressed, and leaving. Maybe it was due to where I was in that part of my life (or maybe it was due to the pressure of making out with a guy and knowing in the back of my head he was expecting to get some---which was usually right).

I found that when I met someone and really got to know them before having sex I didn't feel that way. :)

[The Drunk Girl]

Maybe. I used to have major trouble peeing in front of people, but now I can go freely. Might have been Kegels, might be the little lady loves my cock. Either way, I piss where ever and when ever I want. :D

Umm....sweetheart, I'm not a 14 year old girl and you're definitely not R. Kelly!

[Lasher]

Maybe. I used to have major trouble peeing in front of people, but now I can go freely. Might have been Kegels, might be the little lady loves my cock. Either way, I piss where ever and when ever I want. :D
Lots of men who are "shy" in the genital area find it easier to perform the urinary function when reinforced with alcohol, according to some studies, but Lasher is sure that isn't your reason, is it?

[Lasher]

:ummm: Maybe it's the estrogen talking, but I think there is a significant connection here between sex and love. "Casual" sex never really worked for me. Sure, I would be into it when it first would get started, but the longer it would go on the more disconnected I would become. I think just about every casual experience I encountered ended up with me saying, "this isn't working," getting dressed, and leaving. Maybe it was due to where I was in that part of my life (or maybe it was due to the pressure of making out with a guy and knowing in the back of my head he was expecting to get some---which was usually right).

I found that when I met someone and really got to know them before having sex I didn't feel that way. :)
Why so promiscuous, dear?