Minneapolis Finder Forum MN
RegisterSearchTutorialsMemberlistLog in
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
Sex to Relationship?
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Sex to Relationship? 


Does having sex for the first time turn dating into a relationship?

Reply with quote
Post  


HELL NO!

Having sex for the first time turns dating in to dating with sex usually. Sex and a relationship are combined in the best case scenario, but they do not automatically combine.

Reply with quote
Post  


LadyM wrote:
HELL NO!

Having sex for the first time turns dating in to dating with sex usually. Sex and a relationship are combined in the best case scenario, but they do not automatically combine.


Okay, one vote for "No". Love to hear other opinions.

Reply with quote
Post  


WhatsUp wrote:
LadyM wrote:
HELL NO!

Having sex for the first time turns dating in to dating with sex usually. Sex and a relationship are combined in the best case scenario, but they do not automatically combine.


Okay, one vote for "No". Love to hear other opinions.


I don't think think sex automatically means you are in a relationship, but for some reason, in my experience men I've been with in the past seemed to think it should. I don't know why but I've had a few propose afterward. Guess it's good stuff. Too much info, I know Sad

NOTE: I don't plan to do the nasty again until my wedding night. I personally think it's just the cause of too much ackwardness/trouble for just relationships/dating.

Reply with quote
Post  


Not to sound like a prude, but I haven't had to face that question. I waited until my wedding night.

Wasn't a breeze, either... But I made that decision and stuck by it, even in tempting situations to go another way...

Reply with quote
Post From An Old Warhorse... 


I have seen sex obligate people to continue mediocre relationships.

I have never seen a mediocre relationship obligate one to continue sex.

Life is much simpler if we only sleep with people we love.

Reply with quote
Post Re: From An Old Warhorse... 


thrice wrote:
Life is much simpler if we only sleep with people we love.


Unless it's been banned.

Reply with quote
Post Excuse me? 


Could you say that again, NoMN, but much louder? It's really hard to hear you from way up on that cross you're nailed to.

Reply with quote
Post No cross here... 


I just simply find it humorous that sex and relationships can be a matter of personal opinion - the turning point of a relationship is pretty subjective - that is, until gay couples want legal recognition - then it magically becomes a matter of "right" and "wrong".

And since many people in this forum would claim that homosexuals don't have "relationships" - just sex - how could a homosexual participate in this discussion? Or is that the goal? To be exclusionary once more?

Which could lead to the conclusion that by making a snide remark about my earlier contribution - the only contribution I'm really allowed to make so as to protect your delicate macho egos - you feel that I shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion, or really society in general, at all.

Isn't that how the whole "this would lead to that" concept works? You should all be familiar with it by now - after all, gay unions would lead to children pledging their undying love to armadillos, right?

Reply with quote
Post Re: No cross here... 


nomnnice wrote:
the only contribution I'm really allowed to make so as to protect your delicate macho egos - you feel that I shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion, or really society in general, at all.


Which precisely illustrates the absurdly dramatic nature of your posts that I sarcastically responded to. Who is stopping you from contributing your thoughts from this or any other string? Who is stopping you from participating in society? Who is stopping you from sleeping with someone you love? People can disagree on issues with civility. Walking around with a martyr complex doesn't lend any credibility to your position. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from forming a civil contract that extends virtually any right afforded to a married person, but that is not sufficient for you. You insist that society validate your life. It is not required to do so. In the end, the only one who can validate your life is you.

Reply with quote
Post Re: No cross here... 


thrice wrote:
Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from forming a civil contract that extends virtually any right afforded to a married person


Um...I'm sorry...WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN? Nothing is stopping me? Except 17 state and 140 city/county laws that prohibit any such agreement.

It's easy to look down on me and accuse me of trying to enter martyrdom when you take so much for granted.

Reply with quote
Post Go Beyond The Headlines 


NoMn- you are stuck on the front page advocacy issues.

In 50 states of the Union, you can co-own property with anyone you like. Will property to anyone you like. Extend power of attorney to anyone you like. Extend emergency guardianship authority to anyone you like. It may not have the name and public title that you seek, but it has the same legal effect.

Off topic here...

I had an interesting discussion with a gay male acquaintance once, drunk in a NY bar. He said to me "do you really think I would choose this? Do you really think I would voluntarily sign up for all the complications of being this way? I tried dating girls, and it just didn't do anything for me. This is the way I am, and there's nothing I can do about it."

That was a very eye opening discussion for me. It changed my attitude considerably.

Having said that...on to my favorite topic. Me.

If one chose to, they could classify me by a number of my personal characteristics. Race/ethnic background. Relationship status. Politics. Occupation. Income bracket. Dozens more. I can guarantee you that if I pasted one of those status on my forehead and went around declaring myself as such to everyone I met, I would find a significant part of the population that would be offended, insult me, and reject me on the sole basis of one catagory. If I chose to fixate myself and identify myself solely on the basis of those catagories, I could find endless evidence of persecution and victimization of me. I choose not to. I am Thrice. I am what you see. Take it or leave it. I know many gay people who apparently live the same way, and they are liked and respected for the people they are as a whole by the vast majority people who know them.

I had to learn in the course of my life that if one identifies oneself only by external association or identification, it is because one fears to stand alone and does not know and love themselves well enough to do so. You are who you are, and your orientation is only a small part of that. Someday when we are old men, NoMN, that will be largely irrelevant as well.

Reply with quote
Post  


And I've learned in my life, thrice, that you have to stand up for what you believe. Being gay is not my sole definition, except in this forum. This is the only place where I have been told I have a "mental disorder", the only place where I have been told I should only hit on men who I am 200% sure are gay, the only place where I have been told that a majority of Americans hate me.

So, by all means, pat yourself on the back for being so gay-friendly - and I mean that sincerely. But, I'll tell you what I tell many other people who call themselves my "friend" - you still don't know what it's like to be gay in this society. Yes, there is something that could be persecuted in every person, but unless you are one thing, you don't know how that certain persecution feels.

I have encountered people who talk about being black in America, Muslim in America, Jewish in America, a woman in America. And I certainly don't start bitching at them for trying to be a martyr - because I know nothing of their experience.

Sorry if you're annoyed. But I will not back down.

Reply with quote
Post  


I see strengths and weaknesses in what both Thrice and NoMN are saying.

Thrice, you make a good point about singling out one aspect of character and making it one's identity. But here's what you are missing: as long as "you're gay!" is used as an insult... and even the Dems did a form of that back in the Bush-Kerry and Cheney-Edwards debates with Mary Cheney, so it's not just a GOP bigotry... then I don't think your "just make it a small part of the whole you and no one will care" argument works quite as well as you - or even I, since I've often thought along the same lines - would like to think it does.

NoMN, you make a good point about the way this board forces one to defend who they are (no matter who they are), but I'm glad to hear that in most of your life, it's not your main way of saying, "Hi world, this is who NoMNnice is..." You make several good points.

However, here's what you're missing: you've said "and I certainly don't start bitching at them for trying to be a martyr."

Well, forgive me if I'm wrong - please.

But I know I'm often prone to feeling a bit like a martyr for being a conservative in a liberal state, a messianic who is fully accepted neither by Jews nor by Christians... though only recently have I "outed" what my real religious convictions are on this board... but you HAVE often pointed out -- in effect, griped at me -- about playing the martyr.

And believe it or not, I've taken that in, given it thought and am evaluating whether it serves me well to see myself as a victim of who I am, or to simply say, "who cares what others think... I am a conservative, I am a messianic, so who cares what others think? Who cares if I'm in the minority? I chose to be here."

So... there you have that, for what it's worth. Wink Not saying it's a perfect parallel though because we probably don't agree about whether being gay is a choice or not, whereas my political stance and religious convictions are... or at least were, at some point.

Best to both of you. Play nice.

Reply with quote
Post  


Great post, Craig. Yes, I will admit to sometimes being "martyristic", but I think it stems from the point you made to thrice.

"That's so gay" or "stop acting queer" or any variation of a phrase that uses gay as a deregatory way to chide another person - similar to the way people used to say "that's retarded" (which is still used by a co-worker of mine and I cringe every time she does it and point out that it's offensive).

Also - this is going to sound strange - but if you ever frequent YouTube, I encourage you to type the phrase "gay rape" in the search field and see what comes up. The search will result in video after video after video of teenage boys "raping" each other at slumber parties, while laughing and calling each other gay. Not only is this disturbing for the fact that I don't think rape is anything to joke and laugh about in any form, it shows that teenage boys are being taught (from where, I won't speculate) that gay sex is not only laughable, but the equivalent of rape.

Reply with quote
Post  


NoMN,

An interesting idea, but for two things. 1) I tend to stay away from YouTube, and 2) I don't want to see rape of any kind... straight, gay or any other type.

Due to stuff I won't go into here, ever, that my wife has had to live through before we met, I have become very sensitized to any kind of sexual violence. We turn off movies and ship them back to Netflix the moment anything like that unexpectedly comes on the screen.

(Heck, my wife refuses to watch SCHINDLER'S LIST, in spite of it's powerfully redemptive message, because of the sexual violence and other violence she'd have to endure along the way. She also skipped PASSION OF THE CHRIST for the same reason... violence in general being the issue on that one.)

So I'll take your word for it, but pass on the YouTube stuff. Thanks for making me aware of it. My general impression of YouTube is not positive anyway, it would not surprise me if there was plenty of other unacceptable stuff there, too, including Holocaust deniers, etc....

Reply with quote
Post  


Agreed, Craig.

Yes, there is a lot of scary stuff on YouTube, to be sure. But, don't you find it a little creepy that adolescent males are joking around about rape?

And they're straight adolescent males. They haven't made their "choice" to be "mentally disordered" yet.

But gays are the downfall of society...yeah... Rolling Eyes

Reply with quote
Post  


nomnnice wrote:
Agreed, Craig.

Yes, there is a lot of scary stuff on YouTube, to be sure. But, don't you find it a little creepy that adolescent males are joking around about rape?

And they're straight adolescent males. They haven't made their "choice" to be "mentally disordered" yet.

But gays are the downfall of society...yeah... Rolling Eyes


It sounds completely creepy. And I doubt the degree to which they are completely straight - although I wouldn't call them part of the gay community, either - I'd call them, likely, sick, confused, violent, and probably drug-and-alcohol-influenced idiots.

BTW, while I have pointed out that homosexuality used to be defined as a mental illness, I've never really said I agree with that.

I do stand by the Torah, which calls the behavior of it sin - along with a lot of other sexual behavior that most straight people engage in and never think about twice. That stuff is sin, too, and it's interesting how some "believers" will focus only on homosexuality, but not the other types of sexual sin... guilty consciences and finger-pointing, perhaps?

I don't consider it a mental disorder, though, anymore than someone who violates other parts of the Torah is mentally disordered.

I don't agree that it's Torah-consistent, but that's a religious conviction, not a societal one. (And one of the reasons we disagree on some things, probably.)

I have said that calling gay civil unions marriage is not good. I have pointed out the trend of democracies toward moral decline, and have expressed worries that, if gay unions are called marriage, it's not that hard to imagine that, in 50 years, marriage will be redefined to include all sorts of other things as well, things that are (frankly) a whole lot worse than same-sex couples.

But I've also said I wouldn't mind calling them civil unions, as long as churches and synagogues that don't want to perform such ceremonies are not required to do so. (And those that don't mind, well, that's up to those religious institutions. though I can honestly say I wouldn't want to be part of such congregations, due to my religious convictions.)

I think the differences between "civil unions" and "gay marriage" may be razor-thin and a matter of semantics, but if calling it something other than marriage gives both sides most of what they want, then what's the harm in changing the semantics?

Hopefully, NoMN, you'll eventually see I'm not as "typical" or as "hateful" as it sounds like you typically perceive most conservatives to be. We're not all "don't be"thinking. You and I are both bright enough to know we can honestly hold some different values and yet genuinely respect one another. At least I hope so.

Reply with quote
Post Loss For Words 


NoMN-
I cannot claim to be surprised at the YouTube videos you describe. I must ask to be excused for generalization, but anyone who has watched one of the "Jackass" movies or "Wild On Spring Break" videos should not be surprised by ANY act of depravity by members of our up and coming adult generation. A large number of young people in this age bracket display total moral anarchy and a vicious sense of what is humorous. Gay people, handicapped people, the elderly, and many more are seemingly considered to only exist for their mockery and debasement.

The only way that I can rationally explain this is a lack of moral boundaries taught to children by parents of the last couple of generations. Young people will inevitably rebel against the mores and norms of their parents. If they don't transmit any, what do the young have to do in order to get their attention and establish their individuality? They have to push any known boundaries of decency and civility further and further in order to stand out from the Pack. I'm not talking about Ward Cleaver bitching about Elvis Presley's hips. I'm talking young middle and upper class girls stripping and performing in orgies on film, and young men sexually exploiting them like fifty cent whores. I'm talking children and grandchildren of the "Peace and Love" generation kicking winos to death, and filming it.

All of society is reaping a rancid harvest from the self-centered and cowardly abdication of responsibility by many parents who could not be bothered to attempt moral instruction of their children. As a parent myself, I cannot imagine what I would do to some filthy little punk that abused my child for their own amusement. I do not know what it will take to return our society to some standard of decency, but clearly it will have to happen or we will not endure as a nation.

Reply with quote
Post  


Great posts from Craig and thrice. I agree mostly with what you're saying, and would like to make two points.

Craig - You may notice that I have also noted that gay unions should not be called "marriage". But, I hope you've also noticed that I've made the point that "marriage" should not be legislated by the state because it is a violation of the separation of church and state. The government should be issuing civil unions to all couples regardless of the participants' genders, and the additional sacrament of marriage shoould only be administered by the couple's house of worship, which, I agree, should not be forced to bless any union, gay or straight, that doesn't meet the standards of its doctrine. The hypocrisy of sinners is indeed a point of contention for homosexuals, which is why the only person in my own life for whom I still have respect for in the "homosexuality is a sin" debate is my friend who is still a virgin and does not co-habitate with her boyfriend.

thrice - I agree that society as a whole is less moral than it used to be. My problem with some discussions about homosexuality is the automatic assumption that all homosexuals are immoral. I am not a religious person myself, and while I see that there are such things as "good Christian morals", I don't believe that the only way to obtain morals is through the Bible or other religious document. Yes, my parents are Christian, but they never told me how to act "because it says so in the Bible", they approached it from a general sense of right and wrong. Therefore, I take issue with the assumption that my homosexuality automatically demotes me from a high moral standing while heterosexuals are allowed to commit all sorts of depravity and still be forgiven for their sin.

Reply with quote
Post  


nomnnice wrote:
Craig - You may notice that I have also noted that gay unions should not be called "marriage". But, I hope you've also noticed that I've made the point that "marriage" should not be legislated by the state because it is a violation of the separation of church and state. The government should be issuing civil unions to all couples regardless of the participants' genders, and the additional sacrament of marriage shoould only be administered by the couple's house of worship, which, I agree, should not be forced to bless any union, gay or straight, that doesn't meet the standards of its doctrine. The hypocrisy of sinners is indeed a point of contention for homosexuals, which is why the only person in my own life for whom I still have respect for in the "homosexuality is a sin" debate is my friend who is still a virgin and does not co-habitate with her boyfriend.


I've noted your stance on gay unions, NoMN. It's a common ground area for us, I think. I might not be sure of every point in your solution proposal, but it makes sense.

As for the hypocrisy thing, it's rife out there. But - not to brag, but since I've previously revealed it on the board - I hope you took note that, like your friend, I waited for marriage to become sexually active... and being about six weeks shy of 40 when I finally did get hitched last August, it was no small wait.

Reply with quote
Post  


Yowza. Props to you, my friend. I don't think I could wait that long.

Personally, I have not abstained until my wedding day because I don't think gay unions will be legal prior to my 80th birthday, and I'm sorry, but I refuse to wait that long.

Now - what do you think of the idea that saving yourself for marriage was constructed in a time when people were getting married in their early teens?

Reply with quote
Post Misdirect 


NoMn-
Personally I don't make a "moral judgement" on sexual activity between two competent, consenting adults unless they are harming others by deceit or infidelity, which is a personal sin in my book regardless of orientation.

My major concern is that many of our young people make no connection between sexual intimacy and personal relationships, and have grown (with the aid of pornography) to regard it as sport. While many of us have been guilty of sexual interludes with people we did not have or intend a relationship with, exclusive intimacy has historically been the ideal expression of genuine love. When I see mainstream media reports of groups of teens "hooking up" and having recreational group intercourse and oral sex with each other without even a pretense of a relationship, I feel that those young people are terribly confused and emotionally empty. I wonder what significance a real, soul-deep and exclusive relationship has for them, and if they are even capable of it. If we resign ourselves to a culture in which all relationships are transient and casual, subject to our own whims and fancies without commitment, I believe we are in deadly moral peril.

Reply with quote
Post  


nomnnice wrote:
Yowza. Props to you, my friend. I don't think I could wait that long.

Personally, I have not abstained until my wedding day because I don't think gay unions will be legal prior to my 80th birthday, and I'm sorry, but I refuse to wait that long.

Now - what do you think of the idea that saving yourself for marriage was constructed in a time when people were getting married in their early teens?


I guess I don't get hung up on that. The idea of waiting until marriage is consistent with my religious beliefs, so I'm not gonna get worried about the cultural aspect. And, hey, already crossed the finish line... and to be honest, that self-control has proven to be an asset in building trust with my spouse that I'm not gonna stray.

If someone had told me at 21 I would be waiting another 18 years, it would have overwhelmed me. Fortunately, I just lived one day at a time, worried about that, and tried like hell not to worry about when I'd "finally be married." Didn't always succeed in not worrying about it, but...

Eh. Whatever. Worked for me. Like I said, I didn't want to bring it up as a bragging point or ego thing. But it can still be done, unlike what Planned Parenthood teaches, LOL.

As for your situation, I empathize and cannot criticize since society has no institution for you... short of going off to Massachusetts or New Jersey or wherever.

But I'll refrain from religious comment about it, out of respect for you.

Reply with quote
Post Re: Misdirect 


thrice wrote:
NoMn-
Personally I don't make a "moral judgement" on sexual activity between two competent, consenting adults unless they are harming others by deceit or infidelity, which is a personal sin in my book regardless of orientation.

My major concern is that many of our young people make no connection between sexual intimacy and personal relationships, and have grown (with the aid of pornography) to regard it as sport. While many of us have been guilty of sexual interludes with people we did not have or intend a relationship with, exclusive intimacy has historically been the ideal expression of genuine love. When I see mainstream media reports of groups of teens "hooking up" and having recreational group intercourse and oral sex with each other without even a pretense of a relationship, I feel that those young people are terribly confused and emotionally empty. I wonder what significance a real, soul-deep and exclusive relationship has for them, and if they are even capable of it. If we resign ourselves to a culture in which all relationships are transient and casual, subject to our own whims and fancies without commitment, I believe we are in deadly moral peril.


I don't disagree with you, thrice. But I think we must make a distinction between virginity and monogamy.

I am not a virgin. Do I wish I'd waited? Yes.

But, that has no bearing on my pledge to be monogamous to an exclusive partner (wherever he may be at the moment - tell all your gay friends).

And I agree, Craig, that Planned Parenthood may be rife with, at times, disagreeable politics. However, I also contend that sexual education is important for adolescents and teenagers, and that parents and other role models should encourage abstinence, while at the same time making children understand that if they are not abstinent, they should at least be safe.

Making condoms unavailable to teenagers, for example, will not, I believe, discourage them from being sexually active. It will, however, discourage them from having safe sexual practices. And I find that more harmful to society as a whole than sexually active teenagers.

Reply with quote
Post Right 


Frankly NoMn, I don't consider virginity to be much of an issue personally. I respect the opinions of others who have a different view.

Historically, I think we find that premarital chastity was "more honoured in the breach than the observance". Many societies placed great significance on virginity at marriage, particularly for females, and that may have also been linked to the critical issues around parentage, birthorder, and inheritance of property and titles. The social stigma of illegitimate birth was the major factor in that social value even beyond feudal times, and once that issue was addressed by contraception the floodgates opened.

There's a huge chasm between the issues of virginity and open promiscuity, as between a hot water bottle and a forest fire.

Reply with quote
Post  


I agree that one can be monogamous, even if they were not virgins prior to marriage. My wife wasn't, but I trust her completely.

I think it's harder, in straight marriage, for women to trust men than it is for men to trust women, mostly because in our culture, whether true or naive, men generally like to think of women as being less sexually promiscuous than men, whereas women tend to think "all men are dogs."

So, while I shared that waiting till marriage helped me build trust with my wife, in no way was I downplaying or trying to deride anyone who may not have done that. So if that comment stirred up a hornet's nest abot virginity and the ability to stay monogamous, I apologize.

I'm not completely anti-sex ed. I would prefer to see it taught by parents rather than teachers, but unless one chooses to opt out of public education through private or home schooling, it's a necessary evil. I will say that the sex ed offered in public school when I was young wasn't of much value and my commitment to monogamy before marriage, sexual responsibility and such came not from public ed, but from my parents.

Unfortunately, when every other local news story seems to be about some idiot on trial for molesting his/her kids, I can understand how not all parents are to be trusted.

Planned Parenthood bugs me because the treat abstinance as more of a castoff thing, rather than a viable option. One can learn about condoms and safe sex without the whole, "don't, but since we know you're gonna anyway" attitude.

That said, I'm not as anti-PP as I used to be. I've learned more about the group and see some things they do that are genuinely helpful to individuals and society at large. But, as you said, some disagreeable politics pop up, esp. if one is a person of faith or a conservative.

When/if my wife and I have kids, we will not be discouraging them from being sexually active by simply denying them condoms, though. Sexual responsibility will be part and parcel of raising them, increasing the information at age-appropriate levels as time goes on. But I trust my wife and I to make those age-appropriate judgments more than I do a public school system.

Reply with quote
Post  


CraigInTwinCities wrote:
Sexual responsibility will be part and parcel of raising them, increasing the information at age-appropriate levels as time goes on. But I trust my wife and I to make those age-appropriate judgments more than I do a public school system.


Agreed, but parenting is not what it used to be. For many children, they will not get that type of education unless it comes from the schools. Isn't it better that adolescents are made aware of birth control and disease-prevention tools, at minimum, than have no information at all?

And, if so, how do you feel about programs like DARE? Do you think kids are at greater risk for drug use because of that educational program?

Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum