Comic Genesis Forums

candide wrote: You misunderstand my post.

1: Sex is a separate, orthogonal axis to human relationship.
(What I glossed over: the human relationship "axis" is really a full subspace with its own rich, complex set of orthogonal axes. But we don't know what many of those axes are.)

Yes. and I'm disagreeing with you. :)

To you, they may be separate... but for me, sex without a relationship doesn't work. Using your axis example, the quadrant corresponding to a positive sex value and a negative relationship value doesn't exist.

2: We are fed a myth about sex. The reality is far, far more complex.

And what would this myth be?

3: Beware denial, for it will return to bite you!

That's probably good advice for just about everything...

BTW Randy: We already know you're a rare bird, ;) and being a guy with absolutely no interested in sex for itself just fits with your being so different. :D

Heh. :)

Yeah, but if they question your "manliness," you can just respond with a great big grin, and say, "Yeah, but I know the secret to what women really want." Then turn back to your work and refuse to say anything more. :D

I'm not sure how that would work. :)

--Randy

Zavion wrote:I'd rather be someone's friend and then fall in love later than start out their boyfriend.

That's what I mean.

randyg wrote:

candide wrote: You misunderstand my post.

1: Sex is a separate, orthogonal axis to human relationship.
(What I glossed over: the human relationship "axis" is really a full subspace with its own rich, complex set of orthogonal axes. But we don't know what many of those axes are.)

Yes. and I'm disagreeing with you.

To you, they may be separate... but for me, sex without a relationship doesn't work. Using your axis example, the quadrant corresponding to a positive sex value and a negative relationship value doesn't exist.

Well, you are misunderstanding me, for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Remember, I'm a physicist. When we, like the mathematicians, say, "There's an aflerg-axis and a vzglyad-axis and a fwee-axis ..." that implies the existence of the quadrants, of the entire space, not just the on-axis points.

Now, you may exist only in one quadrant of that space. You may have no interest, inclination, or even ability to move about our out of your quadrant. But that doesn't mean the rest of the space doesn't exist.

And I'm not describing myself here. I'm describing what I've observed, in myself, and in others over my 35 years on this earth.

And, I'm offering advice.


Sure, sex can be an after-enhancer to an existing relationship. It's a nice ideal to strive for.

It's also what we're told is the only valid form of sexual expression. Especially by the current crew in control of the US.

That's the myth I'm trying to strike down here. And I'm trying, also, to warn you not to be blinded by that myth, to face, understand, and accept the reality. Fail to do so, and you'll also fail to reach your ideal.

Plus, you'll spend your life miserable should that ideal fail to materialize. Way, waaaaaaaay too many people buy into the idea that sex can only be good in a relationship, and that, conversely, sex in a relationship must be good. They buy into that idea, then trash perfectly good relationships because reality doesn't match their expectations.

Don't do dat.

By all means, strive for your ideal, but accept reality.

candide wrote:I cannot stress the latter enough. At my previous job at That Horrible, Horrible Place (I start my new one next Monday *whee!*), I heard guy after guy complaining about his ex-wife. The common theme in-between the lines of all of these conversations? These guys each seemed to confuse sex with love, as if good sex somehow would create a good relationship, or romance would cause good sex. It didn't.

I find that it's not just men who confuse sex with love. Sometimes I think that my Mom can't distinguish between the 2 at all, my Dad cheated on her by having sex with another woman but she forgave him and had him back. My mom has apparently "fallen in love" with a man where she works, my Dad is completely aware of her feelings for him, and my Mom often talks about him to me and my siblings when he's in the room. None of use want to hear, especially my Dad. My Dad gets angry at my Mom and she can't even see why? She says that he did far more than she's done, that she's never even kissed him. She can't see why cheating on someone emotionally would hurt someone more than cheating on someone sexually.
Well, maybe it's more a case of prioritising than confusing, but I wouldn't think my Mom would consider the sexual part of a relationship MORE important than the emotional part.

randyg wrote:I'm getting remarkably fed up with the guys at work... all of them have an attitude towards women that I completely can't relate to. All day I have to put up with people yelling "check out the legs/tits/ass on that chick" when someone walks in front of the office, and every head in the office follows said legs/tits/ass, except mine. then they all look at me since I didn't. they're crude, uncaring, unthinking, and not interesting in anything other than someone to stick their dick into. Whenever they have a conversation about women, not a single word they say can I relate to. And I have to work with them. sigh.

Dr. Kelso (From Scrubs) wrote:We can look but we can't touch.

I don't really think there's any harm in looking at people, as long as you don't make them uncomfortable by staring at them constantly or anything. I don't consider it harassment to look at someone.
However, I do consider it harassment to draw attention to someone in an attempt to get a lot of people to look at them, as this would likely cause discomfort to the person being looked at. I wouldn't look at someone that someone else drew attention to because I don't want to partake in harasment.
The only reason people draw attention to women walking past is for popularity. Either that, or they are very insecure of their sexuality.

Zavion wrote:I also don't really see a point to marrage because a legal or religious marrage doesn't automatically make a commitment. I think the commitment is vastly more important than the paper that goes with it. If someone needed that paper to make them believe I was faithful, I'd give it to them, but it's not like that paper changes who you are. So I don't see sex before marrage as bad, personally, as long as the relationship commitment is truely there. (I also have a lot of fears of rejection or being cheated on. Not like, paranoia I am being cheated on, just a fear that if I was, I'd break like a china doll, and knowing how I feel about it would easily keep me from intentionally cheating on someone (although I might accidentally if said person I was with thought that kisses/hugs were cheating.))

Men have no sense of occasion.

I'm not sure where this quote came from (weird how I remember the quote but not the source), it was possibly scrubs too.
Now, I don't know, but it's possible that that is true, women seem to be way more enthusiastic about weddings. Maybe it's just that society tells girl that they should grow up and get married. Maybe it's a hormonal thing, I'm really no biologist and I'm hardly a sociologist either.
But I know one this that's hormonal:
The relationship of sex to emotional attachment.
It's generally women that relate sex to emotional attachment. And this isn't about popularity, even though men can get a reputation as a "player" which they may consider a good reputation. When women have sex, a hormone is released that makes them more attached to their partner emotionally. This hormone is a lot rarer in men (think about it, in nature, females don't need more than one partner, so there's bound to be a hormone that stops them looking for more than one partner. It's good for men to have more than one partner because they get to spread their genes more.), but it is there. I guess randyg has a lot more of it than most men.
It's why less women are into casual sex than men.
It makes being bisexual all that more advantagous.

Randy nor I never stated anything that would make us monogamous. Again, never did either of us say that the emotional attachment to someone was limited to one sorce. He just said he wouldn't have fun in the sack without it, and on that point I agreed. Personally I don't like to label myself something until I am or have had the opprutunity not to be, and with monogamy I haven't. I would consider him monogamous only because that usually such a strong attachment only happens to one or two people at a time for a person, and usually one of those people (or both) won't share it. But, then again, I don't know Randy that well to make that assumption, and truthfully I don't know myself that well to make that assumption on myself. (This is sort of like when I found out I was bisexual, I never had, before that time, any reason to think I was anything other than hetero. Was I heterosexual and then 'turned' Bi? In retrospect, no I had always been pretty 'careless' with whom I had loving feelings for (and my libido is mostly mental, so...), but had you asked me to take a polygraph test 4 or so years ago I would have passed easily and said 'Heterosexual'. It's not because that I was, so much as I hadn't had an opprotunity to be anything else so I didn't know that quality existed in me.)
So, all that I'm really trying to say is that, people (or at least me) can and do ahve 'hidden' qualities about them that are not repressed in any way, but haven't had an opprutunity to come out, and Randy and I have never stated anything leading to monogamy, just that we both have in common a mostly mental libido, and similar attitudes about sex (and even that doesn't imply that all our views on it are the same, although they could, and they might not.) I don't know Randy well enough to make such a strong assumption, and I've never had an opprutunity to be different than I am (but it's not repressed because if I did have the opprutunity, who knows how it would turn out?).

candide wrote:Sure, sex can be an after-enhancer to an existing relationship. It's a nice ideal to strive for.

It's also what we're told is the only valid form of sexual expression. Especially by the current crew in control of the US.

That's the myth I'm trying to strike down here. And I'm trying, also, to warn you not to be blinded by that myth, to face, understand, and accept the reality. Fail to do so, and you'll also fail to reach your ideal.

I don't really know what to say at this point, as you don't seem to be listening to what I say, and instead calling it a myth. so, I guess that's my cue to exit the thread.


--Randy