*Penetrative Sex Only when Willing to Raise a Child*

Post Reply New Topic

Sources please. I have looked and the only mention of this study is on a pro-life site and is naturally very vague. So I hope that you can come up with the title of the study?

I think it is time that you confronted your bi-curious nature and tried batting for the other side. Or would your belief in the 'great spaghetti monster' prevent you.

However I think that you are just being paranoid. I strongly suspect this thread is a promotion by the pro-life lobby.

Indeed I agree. Sex is evil and filthy; stealing humans' souls...

Fascinating idea. Do you imply that living creatures are not addicted to food? A deprivation from food unerringly brings on addiction symptoms.

By the way I notice that people keep confusing/conflating two things. "Penile-vaginal penetration" is only one kind of "sex", not the same thing as sex, which includes many other activities.

I was careful to make this clear in the thread title and OP, because I am not at all suggesting that people stop having sex unless they are prepared to raise a child.

But it does seem, as ThatRedHairedGrrl pointed out in her post, that religious teaching on this matter still influences many/most people, and anything that is not penile-vaginal penetration does not seem like real sex, is somehow invisible to them, because taboo.

It is interesting to see religious taboo expressed so strongly, ( especially in PPR ).
.

Here is a newspaper article about it. The study is quoted in a number of places, including a pro-life site, but the study itself seems bona-fide.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/st ... 85,00.html

It is based on findings in one Australian state. I also found studies for the UK showing that 66% of abortions were because of failed contraception.
.

Wrong, if you mean I am in favour of making abortion illegal etc. I am pro-choice, which is why I think it is very important, urgent even, to find a solution which does not involve so much depression, etc, ( post-abortion ), for women, and isolation/loneliness for so many men. After all 1.3 million abortions for 4 million live births in the USA in 2003 is a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and that doesn't even include all the ones carried to full term but which are not really wanted either.

And it seems to me it might represent a solution to the problem experienced by so many AS men, of never, or rarely/infrequently, finding a woman prepared to have any kind of sexual relationship with them.

If people were brought up to perceive two distinct kinds of sexuality instead of one, ( p-v penetrative, with a few non-p "extras" ), women might be readier to try sexual relationships with those men who don't look like a good bet genetically or protectively, because they would not need the same level of reassurance about his genes and/or ability to support her and a baby.

If women didn't have to summon up the strength, courage/self-confidence, and self-awareness which it currently takes to consistently refuse p-v penetrative sex and deal with the reactions of men ranging from "You must be frigid/neurotic/uptight/resent men ", "You just need to relax", "You're not being reasonable. How do you think I feel when you refuse it over and over again","Oh go on, try it, you might like it", "You just haven't done it with the right guy, ...( me )", etc, to " Please, pretty please", and constant unspoken/non-verbal pressure to do "it" rather than other, equally pleasurable, and less risky, things, some of them at least, ( the ones most sensitive to risk, or most anxious about potential motherhood ), might be more interested in AS men.

At the moment the choice is rather pathetic, between having a "sexual relationship" or "being friends".
.

Last edited by ouinon on 07 Dec 2008, 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

People who weigh upwards of 800 lbs., people so fat they can hardly move or scratch their own ass, these are food addicts. The super-obese usually need to be surgically removed from their homes, transported to medical care facility with equipment designed for whales and zoo animals ...

Hunger is normal. Any kind of addiction is not normal.

@ ouinon, I can see what you are getting at, but I think that you are making rather large assumptions

1. Are most women afraid of P-V sex
2. That AS men have difficulty because of the primitive evolution-progeny response, I thought we had trouble because of low social skills and odd behaviour
3.I agree that their needs to be more education around what constituets a sexual relationship and mutual respect. Your argument seems to be that the vast majority of women would not practice P-V sex if the option was there

I have absolutely no problem with abortion, (eugenics aside). In my view a program to remove the stigma of having a termination would help tremendously with the emotional impact.

No problem with that. Still leaves loads of options for the other 300 nights of the year. Many of which are more enjoyable than same old plain old, anyway. Nothing wrong with exercising some creativity, either.



Yes, and we have the 'right' because according to just about any professional working in mental health, it is a vital part of being psychologically healthy. So what is really odd is that having decided it is a 'vital component of health', they then refuse to provide it as an official health service.

I know you're differentiating between 'penetrative/vaginal' and other alternatives, but I've often wondered why we crave so much of any of it. Why our desires are a zillion times more than is actually needed to reproduce the species. It makes no obective rational sense at all, in fact, as you say, causes a lot of problems.

With food and air, the physical effects of deprivation are clear to see. Am I right in assuming that there are NO physical problems, no organ degradation, nada, caused by abstinence?



Only 2? Why stop there?

I don't think that it works like that with women. I've never been one, but from watching a few thousand or so, I really don't think any 'deep unconscious' desire for alpha males is controlling their behaviour. The effect of alcohol shows this. Alcohol shuts down the social controls (super-ego?) and brings the basic instincts(id?) to the fore. Yet drunk women (and men) become a heck of a lot less choosy. All of a sudden, they'll even see the loser geek in the corner as a potential mate! All that 'alpha male' stuff is coming from the super-ego, it is social conditioning and idea of status in the herd, nothing deeper. The base instinct is for sex with anything that has a pulse. In fact it's better than that, even inanimate objects of the correct shape will suffice.

I think that average young girl or guy going out at the weekend does not have reproduction anywhere on their mind at all. Quite the opposite. The aim of their sexual desire is the psychological benefit of having their self-worth validated.

When you say "it" do you mean that health professionals think that penetrative sex is necessary for mental health, or "simply" physical affection and touch? I think they may both be factors, but for different reasons, one relatively "natural"/instinctive, ( the physical affection which many humans do seem to need, which is why animals/pets are now being provided as "therapy" in the UK ), and the other socially-constructed.


None, if still receive physical affection/companionship etc. But society, "education", advertising, etc, teach people to feel crap about themselves if aren't in a sexual relationship/"getting it", and so the chronic lack of a partner can cause depression.


I agree to some extent about the super-ego component, but I suggest that the main reason that women become less choosy, ( or choose differently ) under the influence of alcohol is that it makes them less concerned about danger/risk, etc.

In fact it is a very good example of exactly what I am talking about. Remove the fear, as alcohol famously does, and women will go for different kinds of guys.

.

I think that believing they are not is an even greater assumption.

The prospect of pregnancy outside a longterm secure/stable relationship is very frightening for a lot of women, and most women know that even with contraception p-v penetrative sex may make them pregnant.


AS odd behaviour and poor social skills are a lot more important/worrying if a woman thinks she may get pregnant with that person.


If the option "not to" was clear and generally understood/recognised I think that many women would refuse p-v penetrative sex until they were ready to raise a child, yes.
.

Except that the likelihood of getting pregnant from penetrative sex is LOW. It is not an assured outcome. It is a risk, in the same way that an STD is a risk, or having a heart attack is a risk. Penetrative sex does not ensure pregnancy, and millions practise it without ever becoming pregnant.

I just found an interesting article at :

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... ll/16/1/57


However;


It seemed possible that what the studies had been measuring was not people's "choosiness" in response to real risk, but in reaction to perceived risk. A new study set up to look at this found that;


Their conclusion was;



It doesn't matter whether the risk of contraceptive failure and pregnancy is "low" or high, just so long as there is a risk. What matters is a person's perception/assessment of the risk.

***********

PS. I found another article sort of connected to the subject, but from a completely different angle at;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 213824.htm

"Contraceptive Pill Influences Partner Choice"

Last edited by ouinon on 09 Dec 2008, 2:46 am, edited 3 times in total.

What does this imply over a long time span? That human beings will ultimately lack variety?

Hive mind, here we come. (or "there they go", at least...)

My sex life isn't up for regulation or restriction. Period.


M.