Friday, 01 February 2013
-
Desensitized Lovemaking
Lovemaking is a beautiful thing to happen between two people. It's an expression of affection between two people. If only it were still on such a high pedestal. Things have changed a lot!Call me old-fashioned, metrosexual, or any other any other words you care to throw at me, but I know what I like and what I don't. What I learned about love at a young age was that you find somebody you love and who loves you back, you get married and stay faithful to each other. This is obviously such a long shot from what really happens most of the time. It's everywhere you look: a cheating scandal, a football player or other celebrity with a mistress, the jock of the school sleeping with every girl they can, insert sex liberally wherever you so please.
I hear about it all the time on Facebook and it makes me crazy. It's usually from the same people who say, "All women want is money!" or "Men are all the same!" Well, let's look in retrospect, shall we? YOU went out, met somebody while you were DRUNK (usually the case), and you two bumped uglies. I don't care if you're wearing a condom, sex is sex! I'm not going to say I've only slept with one woman because I'd be lying, but I can say that the women I HAVE slept with were all people I got to know beforehand, and I loved them at one point. I think one night isn't quite ample time to get to know somebody, but that's just me.
Back when I wasn't even a thought in the back of my father's head, the way I think of things was pretty much the norm. Sex was kept to a minimum and you were talking about marriage before you "did the deed" together. I approve of this mindset only because I'm clingy to an extent. I like to exclusively date one person and get close to them, bend over backwards to let them know I love them, if they really make me happy in that kind of way; otherwise, I'll explain that things just aren't working.
Other people in my age demographic are the opposite. I'm not saying they're wrong; I just don't see how anybody could sleep with somebody they don't necessarily love. Doing things like that, to me, sounds like self-inflicted emotional damage. Maybe it's because I read too many books, maybe it's because I grew up in a house of women and think like one in some aspects, or maybe I'm just crazy.
What are your thoughts on this subject? Have times changed for the better, or for the worse?
Image Source
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: WorldWideWatchman@xanga
- Name: Stephen Levy
- Location: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, United States
- About Me: I'll debate with you, but never disrespect you. I'm an aspiring actor who likes to talk about the news and always has ten cents to add and looks for your all the time. I think Facebook is dying, so I'm going to start looking for Internet Friends on here. Track my blog. You won't regret it. Follow my Vlog at: Http://www.youtube.com/user/WorldWideWatchman
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 6481 Comments: 0 249 View all posts by WorldWideWatchman@xanga
Comments (249)
I think it is for the worse, definitely. And I agree with you. The modern attitude about sex stems from a belief that morality is relative, and that humans are basically animals. I believe that humans are more self-aware and complex than that, and that morality is universally fixed. We have needs that are greater than a temporary urge...we have a self-awareness that craves for greater meaning in relationships than what can be offered by simply following our physical urges.
The happiest people I've seen, truly at peace and happy, are those who see other people as more than objects...as more than outlets for meeting their own needs.
"Other people in my age demographic are the opposite. I'm not saying they're wrong..."
Be a pushover. I'm saying they're wrong. Times have definitely changed for the worse.
"...I just don't see how anybody could sleep with somebody they don't necessarily love."
I can see how, and I can easily see how it's detrimental to everyone on a global scale.
How many times do I have to say this? LOVE DOESN'T EXIST, AND IF YOU BELIEVE IT DOES YOU'RE A BLITHERING IDIOT!!!!!!!
Sex is just sex. There's nothing special about it. It's a biological process. It's no more special than taking a shit, and it's a physical need for all of us. That's all there is to it.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Once again, that's working under the assumption that love exists, which it most certainly does not. "Romance" is nothing more than glorified lust.
You mean they experience a temporary lack of suffering more often? Maybe that I could buy. But there truly is no such thing as "happiness" either. It's just a term for the temporary absence of suffering.
uh, since when is d-ish in the business of submitting "facts" without an actual study to support it? oh wait that's right, since always.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16287113/ns/health-sexual_health/t/even-grandma-had-premarital-sex-survey-finds/ try doing your research before you go making claims about generations you don't know about because you weren't alive.
more later. (maybe.)
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - You only say that because you've never experienced feeling it. I have experienced it, though. Even if you have never felt love, know that you are loved.
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - He's not arguing that people never had sex before marriage, but that the view toward lovemaking has changed. It's not "love making" anymore, in most of the culture's view. It's just getting off.
I already said this on the original weblog, but whatever.
I don't think times have changed, let alone for the worse. Throughout history you've had men with multiple wives, concubines and mistresses galore. Harems were a sign of power, in some places this is STILL in practice. Women used their beauty and charms and the promise of sex to land a good husband. Dowry anyone? Sex for social standing and security. Don't we call that prostitution or "slutty" today? Those husbands then fucked the slaves/maids. The only difference is that marriage is no longer a social requirement today, and things are much more out in the open. You don't need to get married to live together or raise a family. So why on earth would you need to be in a relationship to have sex?
I've had more one night stands than anything else. Why? I wasn't looking for a relationship, wasn't even looking for a FWBs, just sex. I like it that way, I don't have to call you, I don't have to talk to you. We sleep together and go on our merry way. It works for me, it works for a lot of people. Sex and emotion don't necessarily go together.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - AND because there's no scientific evidence to back it up.
I'M loved? You must not know me or my history very well. If what I was shown my whole life is "love" I'm not so sure I like it. Even my own mother hates my guts to the point I have it on record that she regrets having me (probably the only thing we agree on, really).
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - Lol. You're pathetic. And no... sex is not a "need". People go their entire lives without it. There goes your entire argument.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - Not having sex on a regular basis doubles one's risk of heart attack and stroke. Just saying.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - Doubles one's or doubles those who the survey was taken on? Statistics do no apply to individual cases. The flaw of YOLO. If that is the case, statistics are irrelevant.
You ever think that maybe those who don't have sex are those who aren't physically healthy enough to do so and are inherently more likely to have a heart attack or stroke? You want to introduce me to all of the individuals the research was done on? I haven't had sex in years and I haven't had a heart attack or a stroke, so I don't know what the hell point you think you're making.
You're skewing statistics to make an irrelevant and incorrect point that individuals somehow "need" to have sex, when even if there is a greater chance of ill-effects and even if having sex is beneficial, that still doesn't make it a "need".
my friends wifey made the theory that usually any sex you have with someone, your feelings for them are amplified by 1000. 0 feelings times 1000 is still 0.
not everyone can be as saintly & honorable as they use to be during WW2, pulling chairs out & going steady. they just want to feel good & not think about the consequences.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - I could twist your argument there to demonstrate there's no link between smoking and a greatly increased risk of lung cancer. You're using the same spin tactics big tobacco used to try to reason away the very strong link described.
Just because you have an elevated risk of some ailment doesn't mean you will necessarily get it, just that it's more likely you will get it. There's a difference. And the bottom line is that scientific medical research has demonstrated a link between sexual abstinence and a greatly increased risk of cardiovascular problems. That doesn't mean those who are abstinent will wind up with cardiovascular problems, they're just more likely to.
I'm just using this as an example to show that sexual gratification is a necessary component for optimum physical health. No amount of spin tactics will change that.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - Oh, I've heard all about you! Granted, you're not the first comment on here, but, I consider it a privilege that you actually commented on my post! Is your trolling the final step in my initiation to Xanga? Anyway, with no disrespect intended, I politely offer as a rebuttal: "Sex is a just biological process." Yes, it is, and your dog? Just a damn dog. Welcome to my blog! Happy to have you here!
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Thanks for commenting on my post! I'm glad to see that you agree with me and that I'm not just some old-fashioned flake. It is illogical to treasure somebody who looks at people as expendable objects, just my opinion. :)
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - "Just because you have an elevated risk of some ailment doesn't mean you will necessarily get it, just that it's more likely you will get it."
No... people have an elevated risk. A person does not. If you're going to use statistics that were obtained from more than one person, you must apply them to more than one person or your information is skewed. If you don't get the ailment you weren't more likely to get it. You were less likely, and your case should then be subtracted from the overall statistic to reduce the overall likelihood for everyone else.
Secondly, what scientific aspects of sex make it necessary for optimum health that couldn't be obtained from other sources? The physical exercise that goes into it? Or the resulting sense of fulfillment? Or are you suggesting that at some point for some magical unknown reason a penis must enter a vagina for maximum effect, and if so, would that not make you a parasite?
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - Who pissed in your corn flakes? I'm not saying premarital sex DIDN'T exist, I'm just saying that the climate towards it has changed. I'll be happy to inform you that I like to read before I stand on my soapbox, but thank you for reminding me anyway.
@WorldWideWatchman@xanga - Yeah, you want him? He doesn't seem to like living here anymore anyway, and he's rather expensive to care for too.
@IcECaT123@xanga - Your comment about feeling good and not wanting to worry about the consequences makes me want to get into something different, but, another day over a different donut, perhaps.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - Although I am enraptured by the sublime feeling of a good trip to the commode, exercising my prostate gland is beyond compare.
@PlatotheSmurf@xanga - This made me laugh. A lot. I'm sure any of us could agree that reading a newspaper while doing the deed is quite a trip, bumping uglies? Yeah, that's almost other-worldly.
@secretbeerreporter@xanga - we'll take him if you don't want him. then you can finally die in peace.
@PlatotheSmurf@xanga - best. comment. ever. I like you!
@T3hZ10n@xanga - I've never thought of myself as a vaginal parasite. If I can get past my crashing self esteem I promise to give it some serious thought.