Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DemonOfWrath]

MSH made a point that you've kind of just skipped past weird. As an asexual person, you're ignoring/not truly understanding the fact that there's an emotional/biological drive to have sex, for people who aren't asexual. Telling people "it's risky, so just don't do it" does not work, else, well, abstinence-only sex ed would work. You seem to be repeatedly arguing that people should just ignore their base desires/needs because it's illogical/risky.

Or at least, that's how it looks like it's coming across. You're trying to argue against an emotional base imperative for the large majority of the population by citing statistics and research results and it really shows that you don't understand sex drive as an asexual person. (This is fair by the way, but makes you come across in this argument like a robot arguing against illogical humans and not able to compute why they're not being purely logical.)

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah, that's the other thing: This is probably the least relevant time in history to be discouraging sex. The horror of late-stage capitalism has deflated more dicks than religious extremism ever managed.

You are a wordsmith amongst tongueless men, truly brilliant description

[wierd]

MSH made a point that you've kind of just skipped past weird. As an asexual person, you're ignoring/not truly understanding the fact that there's an emotional/biological drive to have sex, for people who aren't asexual. Telling people "it's risky, so just don't do it" does not work, else, well, abstinence-only sex ed would work. You seem to be repeatedly arguing that people should just ignore their base desires/needs because it's illogical/risky.

Or at least, that's how it looks like it's coming across. You're trying to argue against an emotional base imperative for the large majority of the population by citing statistics and research results and it really shows that you don't understand sex drive as an asexual person. (This is fair by the way, but makes you come across in this argument like a robot arguing against illogical humans and not able to compute why they're not being purely logical.)

That particular bias was acknowledged, without provocation I might add, in the very opening salvo.

Damage that pregnancy causes/can cause:

Altered bladder placement (from uterine downpressure) results in poor urine retention postpartum in many women, due to muscle strength loss and other factors.
Vaginal birth weakens the wall between the vagina and the rectum, promoting the formation of an rectovaginal fistula.
Cesarean section leaves scarring on the woman's abdomen, and can weaken the uterine wall, causing complications in later pregnancies.
Microchimerism can lead to a raft of autoimmune disorders


That said, I am strongly of the opinion that sex is not a recreational activity, but I am rather biased in that opinion. Simply because you cant keep your junk in your trunk, and are addicted to dick/vag, does not mean that society should support your decision to be a goddamn jackrabbit with your sexual antics.  If you are going to be engaging in ribald acts of sexual hedonism, (Because of your adiction to bumping uglies with people on a regular basis), then go and get yourself sterilized first. Bank up some gametes at a fertility clinic or two, then go get that shit turned off.  Use the banked tissue if you want to have children.

Since this lacked context that clearly was needed, I addressed that with the needed clarification later:

The more people you (and your circle) engage with, the greater your risk factor is.


Again, I am biased as an asexual person. Sex should not be a recreational activity. (Like going drinking, or watching TV.)  Sex is a pair-bonding activity, and a reproductive activity.  In the case of homosexual people, it is principally a pair-bonding activity.  There is no harm in enjoying it, and doing it often, as long as it is with a person you love, and you intend to stay with them. 

However, it is also an activity that many pathogenic vectors have evolved to exploit, and doing it willy nilly on what amounts to the honor system, is a recipe for disaster.

So, NO--

I totally DID address that, and openly acknowledge it.

FROM THE BEGINNING.

[Loud Whispers]

too long, didn't read


_{just joking}

[wierd]

Hush you! (damn limey)

LOL J/k.

[DemonOfWrath]

Yeah the bias was acknowledged, hence why I knew about it to point it out. But then you're still arguing from that biased position without adjusting for it. That's what I'm pointing out. You acknowledged the bias, but still read as someone arguing against an emotional base drive people have, that you don't have, from a purely non-emotional point of view.

And again, if telling people "don't have sex before XXX prerequisites because people can get pregnant/catch STDs" worked, abstinence-only sex ed wouldn't be a massive failure.

[wierd]

If you not, the position I took was more:

Make sure they understand what "Not entirely effective" and "Only 90% effective" actually means," coupled with "Quality sex ed is very important."


This is not "abstinence only."  It is "Make sure they have proper informed worldviews, so that when they DO go and have sex, it is not because "I thought the condom made it safe!", it is because "We decided it was worth the risks."

[scriver]

scriver, I understand you are upset about the Late Stage Capitalism thread. You don't have to follow me around the forum being mad, I understood the first time.

In the mind of the self-centred everything revolves around them

If you don't want to share the forum with others then... Well, sharing the space is pretty much the point of the forums. Your navel will probably do for you.

[DemonOfWrath]

Ok sure. But you have inter-spaced the points where you've said that with other points where you've said it should not be a recreational activity (in both of your own quotes a few posts up ), or that it should only be done with intimate romantic partners. That might be where the feel that you're basically arguing for abstinence outside specific situations is coming from.

[wierd]

Which, as I have exhaustedly pointed out repeatedly, is a position I did not take, and exists only in the minds of the arguers.

[DemonOfWrath]

My point there is there's reasons from your words earlier that people are thinking that's your position.

[wierd]

I should think that explaining it bluntly should be sufficient, no?  Clearly not.

[ChairmanPoo]

*shrug* It's kind of a given that not having sex prevents 100% of STDs. The fact that it doesnt work for a segment of the population doesnt make this any less true. It means that you need to give more advice than that (thats the problem with the "abstinence" agenda. It has a religious core which cares more about abstinence than what abstinence is supposed to achieve). But I think its a good idea to advise against ONS.

And really, there's a spectrum between "asexual" and "cant power dick and brain at the same time".  I'm not asexual. I'm cis-heterosexual-male and am very much attracted to women. I have turned down ONS because I was concerned about the consequences. I'm not saying I'm in the majority, but I'm probsbly not alone either. And... every bit helps. If some people are informed about STD contagion risk and keep to their stable partners, then you're preventing infections. And the ones who don't at least will know they are more at risk than they would be, and hopefully will be more careful to use protection for the most part.

Understand that I'm not putting any moral weight to promiscuity. I dont give a shit about that, everyone can do what they want with their bodies. But there *is* a certain epidemiological weight. A nun is less likely to get, say, HPV than a sex worker. And there is a whole spectrum of risk between the poles. 🤷‍♂️

[wierd]

Not entirely true poo; I am at extreme risk of contracting crotch rot by being an elder care worker.

Elderly people have had an entire lifetime of poor decision making to accumulate a raft of sexually transmissible diseases, and care workers are intimately exposed to their bodily secretions as part of their care.


Consider: a guy with HIV and hemorrhoids decides that having to use his private bathroom in his own room is just too damn onerous- ROUTINELY uses the staff bathroom because it is much closer, and more convenient, despite repeated consultation not to do so.  Does not give a fuck. Sneaks in, takes a big bloody shit, spreads virus all over the seat, then just wipes it up with toilet paper and sneaks out. Thinks this is just fine.

[Max™]

Nevermind, I don't care.