5 ms·

> 1) I was raised into believing that sex implies serious relationship and vice versa. As in "if we are having sex that means we are in serious relatioinship".

• winter_blue 4y ago
  > As in, for women the sexual transaction is big serious deal. If that truly were the case, you wouldn't see 5% of these hypersexual men monopolizing 50% of sex (as the paper says). Or maybe many women like intentionally putting themselves in harem-like situation, if in exchange they get to have sex with "hot men". Overall, it's a deplorable state of affairs.
  • yieldcrv 4y ago
    Can you elaborate on the deplorable aspect? What's deplorable and what would you prefer to occur?
    • winter_blue 4y ago
      Just like a very high Gini index (the index that measures economic inequality), results in economic suffering and pain for a significant portion of the population, the current state of affairs causes analogous (here, intimacy and lack-of-sex-related suffering) for million of the less-fortunate gender+orientation (cis heterosexual men). I'd prefer monogamy that's state-enforced[1] socially-promoted culturally-inculcated. That would go a long way in fixing the inequality (both not in countries like China and India which a separate sex ratio issue to deal with). Even with a positive sex ratio with more women than men, in North America, if it is indeed true that top 5% end up monopolizing 50% of sex (as the linked research paper), that's a staggeringly bad and deplorable state of affairs. [1] Enforced by fully utilizing the state's monopoly on violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence), e.g. with both long prison sentences, and torture or severe corporal punishment – to completely and utterly suppress and root out any violations of hypothetical future sexual morality laws.
      • yieldcrv 4y ago
        I disagree, but partially because I'm not sexually frustrated but I can see it happening if I get sick or poor or disfigured - which I can see as occurring all at once - so I'll entertain it for a moment. We could probably co-opt existing antitrust laws to reach this result. Probably different against the men and women as different anticompetitive practices are put into play. Funny concept, antitrust on unincorporated businesses that trade in paid meals (dinner dates), federal jurisdiction could be extended with evidence of the interstate usage of the internet communications, that fits the interstate commerce jurisdiction, with evidence being number of matches in combination with meetups per month or some other interval. I could see it working, especially if there was a whistleblower bounty.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
• konart 4y ago
  Well, everything is different for everyone (not to mention different countries etc). My experince: 1) First time I was almost forces into sex by a girl one year younger than me whom I invited to my apartment. While I obviously hoped for something romantic to happen - this was us meeting for the third time maybe and we knew each other (I mean irl, not online forum bullshit) for like 4 hours. I "opted out" of it while she was sitting on me alread half naked. There were several reasons for this actually but the one about "if I do this now - I will be using her" was the main one I guess. After this I was told (by her) I shouldn't be "a log" (sorry, not sure about the best way to translate the idiom into english). 2) The second time the girl, seeing me being not as straightforward as she hoped for, simple asked if I ever had a girlfriend before. I was honest, saying that while I had a couple, it never went as far as sex - and she simple saying she fine with doing it with me (while inviting me to go to her apartment). Again maybe I'm more of a girl in this regard but for me this was a turn off again. Wtf do you mean you are okay? Do you want it? More importantly - do you want me? .... some years with no sex later .... My girlfriend (now wife) descibes her experiences. As it turns out she had more than a few partners by the time she was 20 (we met when she was around 26). Most of them - just your regular fellow student\coworker etc. She needed sex, was not interested in longterm relationship etc. If you go to twitter these days - people (most of whom women) are also quite open to the thought of going all the way without too much worries. (as long the guys seems nice of course, I don't mean sex with the first stranger here)
• konart 4y ago
  >This seems to contradict some view on women's POV here. As in, for women the sexual transaction is big serious deal. Also by her experience and some other stories from a few women I know close enough - even losing their virginity was more of a technicality. Literally "well, I had to go to a cdifferent city for university and I didn't want to lose it in some dorms, so I just hooked up with a guy with a good reputation (known to be able to do the job without any mess or future problems)" Guys do now have this kind of option aside from visiting a prostitute.
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  > This seems to contradict some view on women's POV here. As in, for women the sexual transaction is big serious deal. And other women learn how to decrease the cost. Women that are fine with hormonal birth control with partners that test for STDs frequently are fine. There is a lot of consequence free sex happening. It doesn't matter that it contradicts a view, your mistake is elevating them as representatives of the entire sex. They aren't, even if they masquerade as so, they are just individuals.
  • avmich 4y ago
    Which mistake? That there are conflicting descriptions of woman's POVs here? We probably should improve descriptions, so we wouldn't rely on ones somewhere and then rely on the opposites elsewhere.
    • yieldcrv 4y ago
      okay lets rephrase: instead of "your mistake" its "your observation stems from..."