Have you ever really even had sex?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Have you ever really even had sex?

  • I've never had sex and don't want to (volcel)

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • I've never had sex and I want to (incel)

    Votes: 7 6.0%
  • I've only had sex with the same sex (gay)

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • I've only had sex with birth control (masturbation)

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • I've had sex with the possibility of pregnancy

    Votes: 31 26.5%
  • I've had sex that resulted in pregnancy

    Votes: 18 15.4%
  • I've had sex with your mum

    Votes: 42 35.9%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 7 6.0%

  • Total voters
    117
The man does not have to think if he thinks she would make a good mother or partner, but only if he thinks she's hot. The woman similarly goes purely on whether he's hot and not what value he would bring as a partner or father.
If you are going to live with a woman for decades and have children, at least you should see if she's a good fuck
 
If you are going to live with a woman for decades and have children, at least you should see if she's a good fuck
I mean we've lived in one of the more sexually hedonist ages in history (sorry incels), so I presume you've had some experiences. Is it really to do well sexually with each other when the other things are in place?

And let's say she isn't the best in bed and also somehow resistant to learning how to do better, is the sexual experience really more important than the love or the love of rearing the children?
 
So is masturbation
You don't think perhaps sex with another person might not be just a little bit better than masturbation? Why on Earth did you start such a weird thread? Is your hand not cutting it? Leading you to philosophical meanderings on a fairly straightforward topic?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bothriolepis
I mean we've lived in one of the more sexually hedonist ages in history (sorry incels), so I presume you've had some experiences. Is it really to do well sexually with each other when the other things are in place?

And let's say she isn't the best in bed and also somehow resistant to learning how to do better, is the sexual experience really more important than the love or the love of rearing the children?
Speaking from experience, if she tries to control you with your dick then you are going to eat shit later in the relationship.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Lemmingwiser
Speaking from experience, if she tries to control you with your dick then you are going to eat shit later in the relationship.
I believe you. I guess I never experienced that from a girl. Maybe I curve anyone that selfish or manipulative. Or maybe they manage to manipulate me in ways that they didn't need to do it through sex.

You don't think perhaps sex with another person might not be just a little bit better than masturbation? Why on Earth did you start such a weird thread? Is your hand not cutting it? Leading you to philosophical meanderings on a fairly straightforward topic?

I do philosophical meanderings on a whole range of topics. And I like to cut to the fundamental of things.

For example, in fighting and self defense, people might say that on self defense against men, kicking in the balls is a good idea. It can be, as it's a way to kind of equalize the playing field against someone stronger. But fundamentally, it's strategically limited. It gives sharp pain, it can do permanent damage, but it's essentially a shock strategy. Against anyone that is used to dealing with pain, like someone with fighting experience, it's fairly useless, as even if you seriously damage the testicles it doesn't prevent someone from running or fighting.

In that sense poking the eyes is much more effective.

When you ask if I don't think it is more pleasurable, you're not engaging with the idea. It's easy to shove away any discussion about things that relate to sex, because people tend to have a lot of shame about the topic, which they can then try and shove away by trying to shame others on it.

I notice this because I used to discuss the topic of circumcision a lot when I had done a deep dive of research on it. That topic in particular lends itself to a whole range of easy jokes.

But to give a deeper answer to your question, I think Alduous Huxley was correct with brave new world and the series of interviews he gave about it, where he explained that there are situations where people are happy, but where perhaps they ought not be. Two topics to find easy agreement on the farms would be the euphoric feelings tranny's might have in the brief moment after surgery, or how people are happy on the current day centralised and censored internet. Two situations where people are happy and perhaps ought not be.

So I think about situations where people are happy with something, where perhaps their lives would be better if they engaged with it differently.

@wtfNeedSignUp gives one such example, where someone might be happy about the sex, but is letting it manipulate him into a miserable position, and @Otterly another, how casual sex can be damaging for women. I'm sure the act itself was pleasurable for both of these.
 
I am an incel in my 30s and I have never even touched a woman once.

So I don't have practical knowledge or do I remember anything from health class.

But I do have some thoughts. 💕

Sex is a very intimate thing when it's between two people that love each other, and it's a special way to show love, so therefore I think even when the goal is not to produce young it is still important.

Also, most people don't realize that touch and intimacy are very important for human growth, it may even be as important as socializing. If you are lacking physical intimacy in your life then you will not properly develop into a healthy person.
 
I think its important to still view the non-procreational types of sex as sex
I dont like the implications of sex without procreating as being masturbation when it comes to things like crime, I think this line of thinking would prove incredibly hazardous for the children on this planet if it were used as basis for law
So many people nowadays are so far removed from being in positions where they have to protect or care for children and the world and society has really moved to reflect that, having sex and masturbation plastered everywhere. I turned on my Roku the other day and there was this huge ad for 'Companion' picturing a woman with her eyes rolled back, which is a movie about a sex robot. I felt sick to my stomach thinking about little kids turning on their TV and seeing that or even clicking on it, and just accepting it as normal nowadays. moralfag tears ig
 
Casual sex with strangers definitely is just masturbation by proxy for everyone involved, can confirm. And yes, it does feel completely different when you cum inside her without a condom, but there's a lot of middle ground between seeing it as a purely hedonistic degenerate circus act with pregnancy as an unwanted component or in this robotic utilitarian way where it has to be strictly procreative to be considered "real".
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Lemmingwiser
Casual sex with strangers definitely is just masturbation by proxy for everyone involved, can confirm. And yes, it does feel completely different when you cum inside her without a condom, but there's a lot of middle ground between seeing it as a purely hedonistic degenerate circus act with pregnancy as an unwanted component or in this robotic utilitarian way where it has to be strictly procreative to be considered "real".
That sounds very sensible. Would you be willing to expand a little on that middle ground?
 
If talking about sex makes you uncomfortable, don't click the topic
Well; I kind of agree with your critic because I’m not sure you are even talking about Sex. There is something lacking in your thought process and even how you write that kind of reminds me of the writings and speeches given by psychopathic individuals where there is this human element entirely missing from their thought process. It’s like someone being asked how to use a tail which they don’t have and they imagine how it might be used…you refer to the mechanical acts of humans in a detached sort of way.
 
Well; I kind of agree with your critic because I’m not sure you are even talking about Sex. There is something lacking in your thought process and even how you write that kind of reminds me of the writings and speeches given by psychopathic individuals where there is this human element entirely missing from their thought process. It’s like someone being asked how to use a tail which they don’t have and they imagine how it might be used…you refer to the mechanical acts of humans in a detached sort of way.
I think I'm just thinking outside of the paths that you're used to. Yes, it's a meta discussion, yes it's a kind of blue sky or ivory tower kind of thinking.

But yes, I am talking about sex, which means you don't agree with my critique?

Personally I note your inability to put on the glasses of my perspective for a second to see what I'm saying (without having to agree) and instead putting away what I'm saying as psychopathic, inhuman and weird, none of which are really arguments or deep thoughts. They are more like intuitive starting points. You could then go to describe what would be flawed about my reasoning as some others have done.

Topics like this are hard to discuss, because we all come at it with the baggage of our own experiences, or lack thereof, which frequently aren't very public either.

It's possible that you have a very healthy and enjoyable sex life. It's possible that you have a very degenerate and unhealthy sex life. I wouldn't know. I think it's more productive to try and look at the ideas themselves and their merit or lack thereof.

If it is so psychopathic and something human is missing, what are you missing? Did the question just surprise you? Do you find it hard to fathom someone wouldn't put fun in the highest position of the value hierarchy? Do you not enjoy engaging with ideas from a new angle?

What's going on here?
 
I think it's more productive to try and look at the ideas themselves and their merit or lack thereof.
You're in the off-topic section of a gossip forum discussing the philosophical considerations of fucking. There's nothing productive about this and you don't even manage to make it entertaining.
What's going on here?
Autism.
 
I think I'm just thinking outside of the paths that you're used to. Yes, it's a meta discussion, yes it's a kind of blue sky or ivory tower kind of thinking.

But yes, I am talking about sex, which means you don't agree with my critique?

Personally I note your inability to put on the glasses of my perspective for a second to see what I'm saying (without having to agree) and instead putting away what I'm saying as psychopathic, inhuman and weird, none of which are really arguments or deep thoughts. They are more like intuitive starting points. You could then go to describe what would be flawed about my reasoning as some others have done.

Topics like this are hard to discuss, because we all come at it with the baggage of our own experiences, or lack thereof, which frequently aren't very public either.

It's possible that you have a very healthy and enjoyable sex life. It's possible that you have a very degenerate and unhealthy sex life. I wouldn't know. I think it's more productive to try and look at the ideas themselves and their merit or lack thereof.

If it is so psychopathic and something human is missing, what are you missing? Did the question just surprise you? Do you find it hard to fathom someone wouldn't put fun in the highest position of the value hierarchy? Do you not enjoy engaging with ideas from a new angle?

What's going on here?
Consider this your proposition is "sex only for procreation" essentially limits a human being to a few interactions within an entire lifetime. From an entirely "functional" point of view this is merely one reason to have sex. But there are more uses for sex than merely procreation or mere "fun". It forms an intricate bond for survival and so is as evolutionarily required as an act as it is for procreation. Without that bond, survival is limited and more haphazard for both sexes.

I would consider having sex has as its secondary goal procreation for humans. We were wired to enjoy it and wired to form bonds with it so the eventual procreation that is inevitable through a repeated act, would ensure better survival.
 
Consider this your proposition is "sex only for procreation" essentially limits a human being to a few interactions within an entire lifetime. From an entirely "functional" point of view this is merely one reason to have sex. But there are more uses for sex than merely procreation or mere "fun". It forms an intricate bond for survival and so is as evolutionarily required as an act as it is for procreation. Without that bond, survival is limited and more haphazard for both sexes.

I would consider having sex has as its secondary goal procreation for humans. We were wired to enjoy it and wired to form bonds with it so the eventual procreation that is inevitable through a repeated act, would ensure better survival.
I think it's worth pointing out. I'm not saying people shouldn't have non-reproductive sex. I'm thinking about whether it's the same thing. And what you wrote here perfectly crystallizes my disillusionment with how people frequently view sex. You consider procreation a secondary goal of sex.

Also, how does that bond help a man survive? The ratio where it would is so limited it might as well not exist. History is filled with women like la malinche for whom it helped improve survival, but only very few men like muhammed's (who married an older, very rich woman). Is there something substantial I'm overlooking here?
 
Back