Casual Sex a Con

[avatar4321]

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/nl09.html

An interesting article. Something to think about.

[Nienna]

What that woman said was all true.

[jillian]

Like anything else, I would say it depends on the individual. Sex can be for fun, but only if both parties know it's for fun. Honesty about one's expectations is far more important than some fake concept of "chasteness" that only applies to women. IMO, of course.

[avatar4321]

Like anything else, I would say it depends on the individual. Sex can be for fun, but only if both parties know it's for fun. Honesty about one's expectations is far more important than some fake concept of "chasteness" that only applies to women. IMO, of course.

who says it applies only to women? The woman was giving her experience, which is naturally going to be a womans. She doesnt have or even claim experience as a man.

There is a reason that fire is a common metaphor for those who engage in casual sex. If you play with fire, you are going to get burnt.

"Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

"Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? . . .

"But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

"A wound and dishonor shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away." (Proverbs 6:27-33)

[Nienna]

Casual sex DOES hurt women more... at least more OBVIOUSLY. Look at the emotional symbolism of the physical act. The man seeks to enter, to gain acceptance. He seeks to please his partner and to gain release. Once the sex act is completed, he has attained his goals. He has been accepted. He has achieved.

But the woman must first GIVE, before the act even takes place. She must open herself up and allow entrance. She must TRUST before the act is completed. She may get physical pleasure out of the act, but the emotional benefits? A woman wants a sense of VALUE out of sex. She has opened her most intimate self, and she wants to feel special, valued, protected. These emotional benefits take place AFTER the act is over. If the partners go their separate ways, how is she to gain these benefits?

Feminists have told women that it's all in fun, that we should just enjoy the ride. But, after opening ourselves, how are we NOT supposed to feel abandoned? Women can numb themselves to the bad feelings after repeated engagements, but they are still there, underneath. And in refusing to withhold herself until she is with a partner who values her, the woman is telling herself that she doesn't need to be valued.

As a result, women very often embitter themselves against men, as a defense mechanism. They seek to devalue the men whom, in their eyes, have devalued them. We now see a society in which men are held as bumbling dopes, unworthy of their superior wives/girlfriends. This is how casual sex hurts men, too.

The way the emotional mechanics of sex are SUPPOSED to work is this: A man seeks acceptance, and the woman opens herself in trust. Once opened, the man protects her vulnerability by staying with her, making her feel valued (the stereotypical "will you HOLD me?").

Now comes the part feminists absolutely HATE. This is the part that men who engage in casual sex miss. When a man sticks around and makes his wife/woman feel valued, he gains her ADMIRATION. Yes, women can actually LOOK UP to men and ADMIRE them. And men like to be admired, so they place more VALUE on women who admire them. See how that works? :)

Casual sex ruins it for everyone. I won't even get into the effects on kids. :(

[Said1]

People can be and like to be admired. That's what you meant, right?

I hear the war cryl of the femanazis as I type this. :lmao:

[TheSage]

Casual sex ruins it for everyone. I won't even get into the effects on kids. :(


Yes. Children should never have casual sex. I mean, playing doctor is one thing but, well, you know....

[Nienna]

Yes. Children should never have casual sex. I mean, playing doctor is one thing but, well, you know....

Hardy har.... :D

So is casual sex okay for adults?

[Said1]

Hardy har.... :D

So is casual sex okay for adults?

I would say yes, but not for all. If you can tell the difference between sex and love and don't have a problem with it, I don't see the big deal. Although, if that's all you're into, you've probably got some 'issues'.

[TheSage]

Hardy har.... :D

So is casual sex okay for adults?

I think it can be ok, but that 95+ percent of the time, someone is getting hurt and, yes, usually it's the woman. I admit I have had casual sex in the past. well, I was wearing jeans and a shirt with no collar. But seriously folks. It's not the greatest thing. I think the important thing is that all people be honest about their intentions, and with themselves about their true needs. I think it IS possible for a woman to just want to get nailed and not care about being held or attachment, but it's not usually the case.

[Nienna]

I think it can be ok, but that 95+ percent of the time, someone is getting hurt and, yes, usually it's the woman. I admit I have had casual sex in the past. well, I was wearing jeans and a shirt with no collar. But seriously folks. It's not the greatest thing. I think the important thing is that all people be honest about their intentions, and with themselves about their true needs. I think it IS possible for a woman to just want to get nailed and not care about being held or attachment, but it's not usually the case.

You were fully clothed during.... never mind. Don't answer!

:D

[Mr. P]

Hardy har.... :D

So is casual sex okay for adults?

Yes.

Key word...ADULTS

[jillian]

Hardy har.... :D

So is casual sex okay for adults?

Yup.

[darin]

The bible fore-told a time when people would believe lies - it's simply an UnTruth that casual sex harms nobody. It's falsehood. It's fallacy.

It's so weird - I mean, even a non-christian should be amazed.


24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.




Today's PC crowd...socially liberal crowd fits those words MORE AND MORE as time goes on.

[manu1959]

i prefer serious sex....casual sex is a little too laid back for me

[eighballsidepocket]

I don't care what many think, when folks have sexual intercourse, there's a type of bonding that happens, and it isn't free and fun and something that people walk away from with no "strings" attached.

Sex is a total transparency of one individual to another in a very vunerable way, physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual way. Call it casual, but there is something built into our human psyche that doesn't call it to be casual. I think we only try to make it seem casual, to alleviate the "committment" that is associated with giving totally, one to another, in the sexual act. The act may/will start initially before Coitus with sexual attraction and all that, but once the act is taking place and consumated, there is a whole different part of the Psyche that takes charge. No doubt there's guilt especially when it's extra marital, and no doubt there's guilt as our consciences are inborn with a "right and wrong" sense from our Creator. Just read the first chapter of the book of Romans in the New Testament. We have all been given a sense of right and wrong without even the exposure to the 10 commandments.........We have a conscience, and it gets pricked everytime we transgress God's laws. Yet the more we transgress the less our consciences seem to "prick" us. Actually, it's because we are becoming "hardened" inside to God's voice. Then we come to the point of just seeing sexual intercourse as "casual", with no regret, concern or magnitude of the actual act that we just involved our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual being in.

[Powerman]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you.

Humans are animals and animals are not hardwired to be monogamous. I don't think it's terribly difficult for humans to be monogamous if we find someone that we can spend the rest of our life with however.

But take my situation for instance. I'm single and I'm really not ready to get settled down. I have a year of college left and don't want a female tying me down after I graduate. But that being said, my sexual drive is still in full force. If women want to have casual sex with me I'm not going to chase them off.

All that being said, if I did meet a very special girl in the near future I'd probably look into a serious relationship. Just doesn't seem to be in the works for me right now. I have some other goals that I'm trying to accomplish and love can come later.

[Dilloduck]

Casual sex DOES hurt women more... at least more OBVIOUSLY. Look at the emotional symbolism of the physical act. The man seeks to enter, to gain acceptance. He seeks to please his partner and to gain release. Once the sex act is completed, he has attained his goals. He has been accepted. He has achieved.

But the woman must first GIVE, before the act even takes place. She must open herself up and allow entrance. She must TRUST before the act is completed. She may get physical pleasure out of the act, but the emotional benefits? A woman wants a sense of VALUE out of sex. She has opened her most intimate self, and she wants to feel special, valued, protected. These emotional benefits take place AFTER the act is over. If the partners go their separate ways, how is she to gain these benefits?

Feminists have told women that it's all in fun, that we should just enjoy the ride. But, after opening ourselves, how are we NOT supposed to feel abandoned? Women can numb themselves to the bad feelings after repeated engagements, but they are still there, underneath. And in refusing to withhold herself until she is with a partner who values her, the woman is telling herself that she doesn't need to be valued.

As a result, women very often embitter themselves against men, as a defense mechanism. They seek to devalue the men whom, in their eyes, have devalued them. We now see a society in which men are held as bumbling dopes, unworthy of their superior wives/girlfriends. This is how casual sex hurts men, too.

The way the emotional mechanics of sex are SUPPOSED to work is this: A man seeks acceptance, and the woman opens herself in trust. Once opened, the man protects her vulnerability by staying with her, making her feel valued (the stereotypical "will you HOLD me?").

Now comes the part feminists absolutely HATE. This is the part that men who engage in casual sex miss. When a man sticks around and makes his wife/woman feel valued, he gains her ADMIRATION. Yes, women can actually LOOK UP to men and ADMIRE them. And men like to be admired, so they place more VALUE on women who admire them. See how that works? :)

Casual sex ruins it for everyone. I won't even get into the effects on kids. :(


A woman wants a sense of VALUE out of sex. She has opened her most intimate self, and she wants to feel special, valued, protected. These emotional benefits take place AFTER the act is over. If the partners go their separate ways, how is she to gain these benefits?

I think this probably explains why more women feel hurt by "casual" sex. ( whatever THAT is).
Shouldn't one's sense of value and acceptance come from somewhere else other than sex? Are you saying that a man that you do not have sex with cannot make you feel valuable ? Seeking to be admired by people is something Anna Nicole Smith engaged in. It' empty.

[Nienna]

I think this probably explains why more women feel hurt by "casual" sex. ( whatever THAT is).
Shouldn't one's sense of value and acceptance come from somewhere else other than sex? Are you saying that a man that you do not have sex with cannot make you feel valuable ? Seeking to be admired by people is something Anna Nicole Smith engaged in. It' empty.

Okay, dillo... I'll bite. :)

I think women feel hurt more often by casual sex because men have at least part of their needs/deeper desires fulfilled when they are accepted in the act of sex. The women's fulfillment doesn't begin until afterward. Casual sex denies women the chance for that.

I wasn't only talking about sex, but also about sexuality. This is an emotional thing; the physical act of sex is merely a symbol for what takes place within a person. I'm talking about the "male ego," and why it is so fundamental for a man to feel accepted and admired. I am talking about why a woman try to "catch" a man (because of her need/desire to be unique in value to him). It is the interaction of the complementary needs/desires that can make sex so fulfilling or so destructive.

As for value? If sex or a sex partner is the ONLY source of value and acceptance, a person is just begging to be hurt. A person cannot be well-rounded if the sexual/romantic relationship is the ONLY relationship in which he/she is involved. The best source of value is God. But God (or Nature, in others' minds) created us to be social beings. We cannot live completely independently of others. There are several types of love and relationships; the "highest" types are the least self-focused. However, sexual love is not the "highest" type. Within sexual love, there are intrinsic needs/desires, as well as the wish to give. This is the design of the sexual or romantic relationship. It is meant to be a partnership (as opposed-for example- to the parent/child relationship, in which one party does the vast majority of the giving). A person who tries to live independently inside this relationship will find himself with problems, because he is denying the nature of the relationship.

[Dilloduck]

Okay, dillo... I'll bite. :)

I think women feel hurt more often by casual sex because men have at least part of their needs/deeper desires fulfilled when they are accepted in the act of sex. The women's fulfillment doesn't begin until afterward. Casual sex denies women the chance for that.

I wasn't only talking about sex, but also about sexuality. This is an emotional thing; the physical act of sex is merely a symbol for what takes place within a person. I'm talking about the "male ego," and why it is so fundamental for a man to feel accepted and admired. I am talking about why a woman try to "catch" a man (because of her need/desire to be unique in value to him). It is the interaction of the complementary needs/desires that can make sex so fulfilling or so destructive.

As for value? If sex or a sex partner is the ONLY source of value and acceptance, a person is just begging to be hurt. A person cannot be well-rounded if the sexual/romantic relationship is the ONLY relationship in which he/she is involved. The best source of value is God. But God (or Nature, in others' minds) created us to be social beings. We cannot live completely independently of others. There are several types of love and relationships; the "highest" types are the least self-focused. However, sexual love is not the "highest" type. Within sexual love, there are intrinsic needs/desires, as well as the wish to give. This is the design of the sexual or romantic relationship. It is meant to be a partnership (as opposed-for example- to the parent/child relationship, in which one party does the vast majority of the giving). A person who tries to live independently inside this relationship will find himself with problems, because he is denying the nature of the relationship.

No--we cannot live independently from others however it is up to us to determine how we choose to interact with them both sexually and non-sexally. When the act of consenual sex has hidden agendas and symbolism attached to it, people are bound to be dissappointed. It's not a magic wand that once sex occurs, all the the significance that one has place on it are guaranteed to occur also. I think many expectations people have on sex are better attained elsewhere.

[Nienna]

No--we cannot live independently from others however it is up to us to determine how we choose to interact with them both sexually and non-sexally. When the act of consenual sex has hidden agendas and symbolism attached to it, people are bound to be dissappointed.

You are claiming that these symbols are "attached." I am claiming that they are intrinsic.

It's not a magic wand that once sex occurs, all the the significance that one has place on it are guaranteed to occur also. I think many expectations people have on sex are better attained elsewhere.

Of course it isn't a magic wand. All people have emotional issues that complicate sex and sexuality. Emotional needs CAN be met outside a sexual/romantic relationship. People CAN be content, healthy, well-rounded without involvement in a sexual relationship. However, if one chooses to enter such a relationship, it is wise to consider the nature of the relationship.

[Dilloduck]

You are claiming that these symbols are "attached." I am claiming that they are intrinsic.


Of course it isn't a magic wand. All people have emotional issues that complicate sex and sexuality. Emotional needs CAN be met outside a sexual/romantic relationship. People CAN be content, healthy, well-rounded without involvement in a sexual relationship. However, if one chooses to enter such a relationship, it is wise to consider the nature of the relationship.

We do disagree on the intrinsic vs attached (innate-learned) nature of emotional expectations regarding the sexual experience. No doubt one will be more satisfied with the sexual experience if the partner shares the same expectations and is aware of ALL that is expected as a result of the womens' submission.

[Nienna]

We do disagree on the intrinsic vs attached (innate-learned) nature of emotional expectations regarding the sexual experience. No doubt one will be more satisfied with the sexual experience if the partner shares the same expectations and is aware of ALL that is expected as a result of the womens' submission.

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. :) You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

[darin]

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. :) You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...


(Dillo is the kitty)

http://www.imagehostingsite.com/images/tmnqzntiwtxymwymdtnz.jpg

:D

[Nienna]

Number 2
No doubt there was a need for reform in the way women were treated, historically. Why should women not be allowed to vote, own land, compete for jobs, etc? Whether one accepts the Bible's authority or not, one cannot deny its influence on traditional Western culture. The Bible bids women to "submit" to their husbands, but it does not place ALL women under the authority of ALL men. Also, the Bible says to "submit," not to obey unconditionally. There is a chain of authority, and if a husband removes himself from under the authority of God, the wife is no longer bound to submit in that specific circumstance (while the husband is out of God's will... she should still submit to him in other areas that do not oppose God's will). She is still responsible to God's higher authority.

In the old culture, men took their authority too far, placing all women under all men, and restricting even wives' activities further than was natural. So rebellion began.

But the rebellion has gone too far. Now, instead of opposing the authority of unjust husbands, women oppose the authority of God in denying their very nature. Instead of RESTORING the natural order, women seek to trample the needs of men, to kill the very thing that would fulfill them in a sexual relationship.

This "submission" is not one-sided. Husbands are also told to submit to their wives in the Bible. Husbands are told to give themselves for their wives' protection. Husbands are told to treat their wives with EXTRA consideration, respect, honor, and modesty, more than they would ask for themselves. I tell you, if a man's goal is to treat me like that, I don't have much problem "submitting" to him! ;)

Two people can certainly attempt to engage in a cerebral, "genderless" partnership, but this will not be fulfilling for the vast majority of people in a sexual relationship. The very nature of the relationship, the fact that men and women have different needs, causes people to desire something different in a sexual relationship than in any other partnership.

[darin]

if a husband removes himself from under the authority of God, the wife is no longer bound to submit in that specific circumstance.

Absolutely untrue. As long as the husband doesn't ask/require the wife to do something CONTRARY to God and her Faith, she should STILL submit. Said another way, The only circumstance to which she should NOT submit is a circumstance where a husband asks her or requires her to do something Contrary or in violation of God's Word. The circumstance of her husband not being a believer, or not having placed himself under God's Authority - is NOT a cause for the wife to not-submit.

[Nienna]

Absolutely untrue. As long as the husband doesn't ask/require the wife to do something CONTRARY to God and her Faith, she should STILL submit. Said another way, The only circumstance to which she should NOT submit is a circumstance where a husband asks her or requires her to do something Contrary or in violation of God's Word. The circumstance of her husband not being a believer, or not having placed himself under God's Authority - is NOT a cause for the wife to not-submit.

I edited. And you are missing the main point of what I was trying to say.

[darin]

I edited. And you are missing the main point of what I was trying to say.

I want you to be clear in what you mean. What you wrote wasn't clear. Your Edit makes it more clear, however. That's what I'm saying. Your initial comments suggest "as long as man is outside God's authority - in THAT circumstance (the circumstance that a husband is outside of God's authority) a wife should NOT be submissive.

[Hagbard Celine]

What if you and your girl have sex because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing its symbolism because you have lives? What about that kind of sex? :eek:

[darin]

What if you and your girl have sex because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing its symbolism because you have lives? What about that kind of sex? :eek:

What is you and your girl sit around and do Acid because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing it's symbolism because you have lives?

[Hagbard Celine]

What is you and your girl sit around and do Acid because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing it's symbolism because you have lives?

Never done LSD. Tell me how it is. :talk2hand:

[Mr. P]

Sex IS NOT a religious event or act. Your feelings about sex may be religious based, or people wouldn’t scream, OH GAWD, OH GAWD during it.

That’s all I have to say about that. :wink2:

[Hagbard Celine]

Sex IS NOT a religious event or act. Your feelings about sex may be religious based, or people wouldn’t scream, OH GAWD, OH GAWD during it.

That’s all I have to say about that. :wink2:

I see it as a religious act, but not in the weirdo, Jesus is watching kind of way that dmp and others see it. I see it as a time to worship my girlfriend's body and soul by showering her with pleasure. A kind of sensual worship. And it's a lot better than church because I actually get a pleasurable return on my investment. I'd definately say it's spiritual on a level, but mostly it's just fun and it works up a good sweat. :dunno:

[eighballsidepocket]

I want you to be clear in what you mean. What you wrote wasn't clear. Your Edit makes it more clear, however. That's what I'm saying. Your initial comments suggest "as long as man is outside God's authority - in THAT circumstance (the circumstance that a husband is outside of God's authority) a wife should NOT be submissive.

I think that this is a matter of how each individual is looking at or understanding what they mean as "God's Authority".

1. One may see living under/by God's authority only in the context of that husband being a Christian. Therefore, being a Christian, means sexual union is mandatory and expected under any and all situations.............Not!
2. Another may see it as involving a Christian husband, but a Christian husband who is currently living according to God's direction ala the scripture.
3. Another may interpret this as any husband, Christian or not, who is following Godly principle of life as a husband towards his wife.

The last two scripturally are not deserving of being denied sexual union with their spouse. The first example is another "animal" altogether. When a Christian abuses their relationship with God in a selfish, self-centered manner, there is not an uglier creature around. They even make most unconverted human being look godly in comparison.
****
Scripture does not tell a Christian women to refrain from sex because her husband is not a Christian,...........but, scripture does tell the Christian husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. We all should know how Jesus expressed His love to the church. He died for us, and rose up for us, and we now live not for ourselves but in trust and surrender to Him who did all of this on our be-half.

So the right man should be living an Agape-love type of relationship with his wife.......or a in english terms, a committed-to-the-end type of relationship with his wife. Agape love is the greatest expression of love.......Total Committment, total surrender. It's not eroticism, or delight; although those two terms are used in scripture and are not taboo.......as they are also part of the wife-husband relationship..........that God placed in our humanity......Phileo, and Eros........Delight for another, and sexual attraction/interest.

Should a woman cut off her husband's sexual relations with her? I think we need to place, "Jesus" into the scenario in this way. What would Jesus say? This can only be answered by those that know or have read the N.T. and have an abiding relationship with God as Christians.

Jesus would not ask a woman to allow herself to be "used" as a convenience for a man's sexual conquest. That's akin to rape in a sense. Yet, sexual intercourse between husband and wife can be a time of release........as the husband may find solace in the arms of his wife after a very stressful day at work or facing that nasty old working world out there. It mutually goes the other way to, as the wife also finds solace and relief in the sexual union with her husband after a day of caring for the home, and raising the couples progeny and all that entails.

There are many reasons that this union can happen in marriage, but ultimately, it's intended to be a time of total personal, one-on-one intimacy, a time away from everything else, and time to enjoy one another, and in some ways a medicinal balm.

Now, one spouse or the other may not "feel" like being the solace for the other's release or problems via sexual union, and I think this is the area where we might have to bring back that greatest aspect of love, called, "Agape" again. Sometimes we just plain don't want to have sex. We are tired, upset, annoyed, or even angered at our spouse, yet, are we saying "no" to them scripturally, or are we weaponizing our, "no" to them?

The feminist mantra has been that men our singularly minded when it comes to sexual union. This is not true. Though men and women are hard-wired differently, they both find intimacy through the sexual union, and do need it in a marriage setting.

Even the wife may be the one that desires the union and it's the husband who is tired, annoyed, or something, and doesn't want to comply.

Often once the start of the union happens, much of the reasons for not wanting to, fade away.

Sex is often used like a weapon. In the marriage setting, it can be withheld to punish. Both husbands and wives can be the culprits. Is it right? I think not.
****
Through marriage, men do learn more about how the sexual union is interpretted by their wives. It also helps them to be more sensitive and also helps them to enjoy the union-time themselves.

Within, man, there is a sort of biological "conquest" push that goes with their biological desire to have sexual union. It may be part of God's way to encourage the florishing of the human race, yet it still is to be exercised under the rules of a monogomous, marriage union. There is a mutual submission during the sexual union, that man does struggle with more than the woman in my opinion. This may be a result of cultural, conditioning.

Agreed, the woman is the receiver and the man is the initiator or one that enters. Yet the woman holds much power and sway as her biological make up exudes and causes the sexual interest in the male. She trully wields a power to make or break a moment in time in a marriage via her approach to what the sexual union is intended to be. Is it just for making babies? Hardly! Is it a casual thing? No! Is it a "thing" to be withheld to get something, or to punish?

"Casual" is the mantra word for those who don't see or respect the sexual union of man and women under the umbrella of marriage. They see it all as biological, and as an individual fullfilling of a "need" and nothing more. To casually say that she doesn't care if I don't form a relationship with her after intercourse is an absolute, "cop-out", and an indication of moral vacuum, and shallow substance as a human being/man. Women may have a more lasting effect of intercourse outside of marriage than most men, but never the less, they have also ignored the the whole premise of what the sexual union is for.

As long as people ignore or avoid facing accountability with their Creator, they will self-define every act they do in society......both with what they do by themselves and what they do intimately with others. With no God, all things can be redefined to the convenience of #1, or oneself.

Yes, God wants us to give to each other in marriage. Even on the marriage bed. With that comes the responsibility of each partner to understand and exercise sensitivity and also at times, refrain from sexual union when its going to be done with the wrong motives. Sexual union does involve receiving something for ourselves, but it also involves giving something of ourselves too. It's not a singular, act of selfishness. It supposed to be a time of mutual gratification.........sharing receiving/giving.

Sometimes we will "feel" used, but there maybe a role being missed here, as the giving part of the act may have to take precedent over the desire/hope/expectation to receive, as our "other half" is in great need of intimacy, and release from stress. That's the Agape love, part of the marriage relationship when defined during times of sexual union.

[trobinett]

I've been married to the same woman for 37 years, sex is great, but I wouldn't say its a "religious experience".

Besides, I think religion is over rated.

[eighballsidepocket]

I've been married to the same woman for 37 years, sex is great, but I wouldn't say its a "religious experience".

Besides, I think religion is over rated.

You part of that old Geezer club too Trob.

I still keep fooling my wife into thinking I'm Tyrone Powers.......Hope I can keep up the act.........going on 31 years here. ;)

Actually she probably has me figured by now..:uhoh: Not Tyrone, just a bloated Chevy Chase.

[darin]

EightBall -

This is for you:

http://d-mphotos.com/images/applause.gif

[Dilloduck]

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. :) You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

? I'm not buying into anything. Males are still the primary sexual aggressors and society had deemed that women MUST consent (submit) or we're talking about rape here.

[Dilloduck]

I think women feel hurt more often by casual sex because men have at least part of their needs/deeper desires fulfilled when they are accepted in the act of sex. The women's fulfillment doesn't begin until afterward. Casual sex denies women the chance for that.


I guess you're going to have to define casual.

[Nienna]

? I'm not buying into anything. Males are still the primary sexual aggressors and society had deemed that women MUST consent (submit) or we're talking about rape here.

Rape? I wasn't talking about rape. I was talking about consentual sex. I'm not following....

[Nienna]

I guess you're going to have to define casual.

Casual... not within the context of a long-term commitment, preferably marriage.