The stigma of sex.

B

BinaryJack

Spam
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
27,559
Reaction score
5,579
Location
100110010
The last few years it has become rather obvious that there is a stigma attached to sex.
Sex for the sake of sex. The no-strings-attached kind.

It seems to be a common view in all facets of society.
Every ethnicity, class, race or creed seems to frown upon those, like myself, that are able to have this freedom of expression of the physical and enjoy it.

It is as if we have somehow overstepped an unspoken and morally accepted line between the moral and amoral.
All based on some subjective understanding of moral values.

In the gay community, where freedom of expression was seen as a right, it has become rather condemning in it's stance towards NSA sex.
The same can be said for the straight community.
Women and men who are able to share their bed with multiple partners without expectation of breakfast in bed or a proposal are seen and called sluts or "players". Both have negative connectations.

Some of the other concerns that it raises it that it objectifies either or both parties involved and that removes the human aspect.
No strings does not automatically preclude personalities in my opinion.
Just because I am not epecting breakfast in bed or a proposal does not mean that I am not able to have a conversation afterwards or do not have respect for the other person.

From my point of view, sex happens in the mind first and if it is great in the mind it will be great in bed and this is all subject to the other person being a person.

So on to the discussion part of this thread.
What are you views on no-strings-attached sex?
 
I can almost see both sides of the fence, but I cant let go of the idea that sex has meaning and should only happen in a relationship. At the same time, I know the only reason it has meaning is because we attach meaning to it. But, perhaps its better for it to have a fake meaning than no meaning at all.
 
Nothing wrong with 'NSA' (© Kage) sex. As long as both parties know what they're getting into up front. I think the problem is when one of the parties involved see it as something more.
I believe representations of deep emotions are more substantial than the sex itself e.g. sharing intimate moments, complete trust between 2 people etc. i.e. 'Love'
 
Ancalagon said:
I can almost see both sides of the fence, but I cant let go of the idea that sex has meaning and should only happen in a relationship. At the same time, I know the only reason it has meaning is because we attach meaning to it. But, perhaps its better for it to have a fake meaning than no meaning at all.
Click to expand...

Why do you automatically presume there is no meaning or fake meaning?
What is meaning?
Meaning itself is subjective. My meaning could be a really great time with a really great guy without any expectations of a long term relationship where neither feels objectified or humiliated.
 
Personally I don't understand why society maintains such a strong stigma against this kind of thing. I'll go as far as to say that the stigma is unjust.

I understand how the stigma started though, hundreds of years ago (actually I could say a few decades as well if I was to be pedantic) when a man had a son or a few of them he would split his land and possessions among his sons upon his death. And if he had any daughters he would pay for them to get married (I forget the word, but the father of the daughter gives the husband's family money - Dowry - I think its that).

Now the last thing a man would want is to split his lives work among another mans children, hence his wife HAD to be a virgin and she could never bed another man during the marriage. The man would not want to pay Dowry for another mans daughter either. So to be sure that a mans children were really a mans children such stigmas (and other rules/practices) came about.

(I am pretty much ignoring religion here, many, if not most teach against non-marital sex but partly because of the reasons above)

However in these days there is little need to no need for anything of the sort. We have means of protection against unwanted pregnancy and we don't pay Dowry or split our land (I'm not referring to wills here) among 20 children.

The way I see it NSA sex is a good thing. People get their fun without any emotional ties or responsibilities to the partner/partners involved... other than getting them off of course.

However people must maintain common sense and use protection, no exceptions should be made. Ever.
 
MartyMarts said:
Nothing wrong with 'NSA' (© Kage) sex. As long as both parties know what they're getting into up front. I think the problem is when one of the parties involved see it as something more.
I believe representations of deep emotions are more substantial than the sex itself e.g. sharing intimate moments, complete trust between 2 people etc. i.e. 'Love'
Click to expand...

Love is subjective. The word is loaded with preconceived notions of the idea.
My idea of Love with my SO and the idea of nsa with another person is completely seperate, although both entail trust and sharing of intimate moments.
 
I can't comment on the act, but fundamentally, you are doing what your biology is telling you to do. People keep adding more and more 'meaning' onto their lives, and they tend to forbid what is seen as acts of animals, but we kinda are animals. In fact, a healthy sex life could be seen as more important than a relationship with a partner who isn't constructive to you.

I don't care if people have vast amounts of sex, and if you look at the majority, it doesn't affect their social/business lives. People whom perform NSA sex, tend to avoid partner relationships, but create stronger bonds with their friends - fulfilling that 'need' in your life to have someone with you. The only problem with NSA sex is that not everyone is educated enough to perform it safely. People will incorrectly use condoms, or not use them at all, thus creating the very unfortunate cases of pregnancy, or contraction/spreading of diseases like HIV.

If people want to perform this, and i feel it will become more socially acceptable as this decade begins to unfold before us, then it's time to make children learn this and respect it. High schools must begin to embrace it, start handing out free condoms, have dedicated classes, etc. Also, having some creepy women, whom is on a monogamous rant, giving you lectures on the dangers of sex isn't exactly productive.

The only issues about this is that it causes issues and social stigmas amongst those who struggle to participate. Not everyone has the confidence to just practice this. However, I guess you could just say go to the doctor so he can give you a dose of man-the-fsck-up. Also, as long as this doesn't begin to infringe on peoples choices to practice monogamous sex (as in, those people are shown as sissies, or the media and people in general turn on those people. Just how NSA sex always carried a stigma, then monogamous relationships suddenly become the carriers of negative stigmas).

This is my point of view though, it's probably not worth much, kage knows whys :p.
 
D34M0n7 said:
However people must maintain common sense and use protection, no exceptions should be made. Ever.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!
The other part of the stigma attached to NSA is disease.
Diseases are a fact of life and common sense need to prevail.
The person that has lost his/her virginity has as much chance of contracting a STD as much as the person that has multiple partners.
 
NSA sex is acceptable until such time as you tie the knot in a formal and legal ceremony of marriage.

Once married there is no such thing as NSA sex... :cry:
 
MickeyD said:
NSA sex is acceptable until such time as you tie the knot in a formal and legal ceremony of marriage.

Once married there is no such thing as NSA sex... :cry:
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X