Being pressured into casual sex I don't want to have...

[panicsurvivor]

Dude!!! Over thinking big time. Go out with her, take it as far as it will go. If the farthest it goes is coffee, than you got to have coffee with a girl. If she becomes your friend, than you have another friend. If she becomes annoying, then don't go out with her again. She could end up becoming your next girlfriend, or maybe after you get to know her a little, you may want casual sex!! Then you will get laid. Awesome. Or maybe it will turn into nothing at all. No big loss. Either way it is a little adventure of sorts, go for it.
Oh and a little tip. If you feel pressured tell the girl and your friend that you have a fear of contracting an s.t.d. , and that before you sleep with someone you want to be tested with them. This will buy you time so that you can get to know her, and will have the bonus of telling you if this girl who is hopping to another continent to get laid is clean.

 

[Newtype]

Casual sex is an oxymoron. It disputes biology. Did you know that when you have sex your body releases a chemical called oxytocin? The sole purpose of this is to bond two people. Our bodies are not designed for sex with multiple partners. It's always a recipe for disaster, so from that stand point you will be doing anyone any favours. Especially considering that women release eight times the amount that men do. This is why she has been hurt in the past. Furthermore, promiscuity results in a psychological disorder known as hypersexuality, which has strong connections with bipolar disorder! I hate to be the downer here, but it's important that people make these decisions with a full spectrum of facts.

Interesting stuff. I didn't know any of that.

 

[panicsurvivor]

Casual sex is an oxymoron. It disputes biology. Did you know that when you have sex your body releases a chemical called oxytocin? The sole purpose of this is to bond two people. Our bodies are not designed for sex with multiple partners. It's always a recipe for disaster, so from that stand point you will be doing nobody any favours. Especially considering that women release eight times the amount that men do. This is why she has been hurt in the past. Furthermore, promiscuity results in a psychological disorder known as hypersexuality, which has strong connections with bipolar disorder! I hate to be the downer here, but it's important that people make these decisions with a full spectrum of facts.

Casual sex is does not dispute biology. Casual sex is biology. Sex is procreation. Men are designed to impregnate women. They are capable of impregnating a women every day. Women are designed to carry and raise offspring. They are capable of doing so every nine months. Men are biologically attracted to younger females who look capable of producing offspring, wide round hips, fuller breasts. Women are biologically attracted to men who can produce strong offspring and protect them while they carry. Strong body, tall muscular frame, aggressive disposition. I am not speaking about modern man and women, nor am I making a phsycological argument. But the statement you made, Is completely wrong biologically when it comes to males. Your statement is true when discussing women, completely false when discussing men. Biologically speaking that is.

 

[panicsurvivor]

Yes casual sex does dispute biology. I have already listed the reasons, none of which you have been able to provide any insight or detail to. I know what you are trying to say, but it's from a belief system that, is again, unscientific. It's an assumption. Please provide the evidence for my innaccuracy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...MhYsDzrjQ&sig2=q6W-zxyv4uNzy2-jX3FlUw&cad=rja

This article I think makes the point that perhaps both of us are making. But uh.........it's kind of common knowledge, that the scientific community views monogamy as a MODERN (as in the past thousand years or so) concept and foreign to our biology. Their are some interesting studies about modern biology, and how things have changed. One point you made was about modern women. The other about a chemical in the brain. What about testosterone, what about a whole other wide array of chemicals in the brain that push for us to mate and kill and behave in savage ways. I am not saying anything from a belief system. I don't actually have any beliefs regarding sex, other than don't hurt anyone. You are actually arguing a belief system, monogamy. I find your opinion interesting, but strange. You are talking like you have the weight of science backing you up, and I have to prove my theory to you. It is the other way around. It is not my theory. It is the common scientific one. I am just stating what is taught by science.

 

[panicsurvivor]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...d1m9GU_fQ&sig2=5V4f3NQdjCsTTqAvomQHIQ&cad=rja


O.K. Here is another one. I don't really understand, you claim that all of science is backing up your theory when it isn't.

 

[panicsurvivor]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...AxhfbWeag&sig2=58gq69p8az2lpTk0TERyrQ&cad=rja

O.K. This one responds directly to your one and only biological statement. Let me just make the point that I don't think people should not practice monogamy. I am married with children. I have not made a political, or social statement. Your comment on humanists and evolutionists implies that you are religious. I have not made a religious statement either. This article shows that oxytocin actually wears off when it comes to sex. It states that biology eventually rears its agenda. Perhaps this debate is pointless, you obviously have beliefs, both religiously and socially that you won't waver on. I respect that. I just have studied the subject, and am showing what the predominant belief is in the scientific community. Perhaps you could show me some links that prove your point.
Also this thread was about being pressured into casual sex. If the O.P. doesn't want to have it he shouldn't. But if he decides he want's to, he doesn't need to be told that his feelings are unnatural, when they are clearly not.

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

It's the same rambling nonsense from humanists and evolution theorists. None of this lines up with real science. None of it is observably true. Does promiscuity happen? Of course it does, but by it's very nature it is something destructive. I cannot see how you can tell me that this is beneficial or natural, as it disrupts the functionally of the subject.

The law of increasing entropy outright cuts down evolution as it is a known fact that all aspects of material being are decreasing in complexity and moving from order to disorder. If evolution is true, then why is ithappening in reverse today? Certainly this would make it understandable why we have such problems from promiscuity, as it is moving away from the natural design of things. It's no surprise either that sexual immorality was at the heart of every culture at the point of it's demise. It says something about the psychological state of the cultures.

! Please, expound on this!

 

[panicsurvivor]

Agreed.
I can find something wrong with every single one of your posts, as you can no doubt find something you find wrong with every one of mine. However I have always liked your posts till now. So we should just be friends and not discuss this anymore.

 

[panicsurvivor]

Please somebody else respond to this. I already said I wouldn't argue...... oh whatever.

 

[coyote]

Please somebody else respond to this. I already said I wouldn't argue...... oh whatever.

i volunteer to have casual sex for scientific reasons

and i don't even have a thermos

or a volvo

 

[Pyrophosphate]

The law of increasing entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity

See, that's where you're wrong. That's the typical Creationist's second law of thermodynamics, so I know you didn't learn that from any scientist.

The second law of thermodynamics states that "in a closed system processes tend to move toward less complexity." The Earth and life on Earth is not a closed system. Earth is constantly being provided a huge amount of energy in the form of heat and light from the Sun. This sunlight is captured by plants and used for photosynthesis, things eat plants, get energy, etc. Evolution works.

In reality, there are no closed systems smaller than the entire universe. As a whole, the universe is moving toward less complexity. See Heat death of the universe

 

[Newtype]

I just know that whenever you hear someone talk about how they can't settle in a monogamous relationship and need to have sexual partners here and there, they always bring up the lame excuse of "it's not normal to be me monogamous" or "my genes are telling me that I need sex". Your genes aren't telling you crap. Every normal person needs sex and lots of it. They just don't want to admit or fail to realize that they have deeper issues, like that girl from Venezuela probably has. It's the same old story over and over again. The older you get, the more transparent society becomes.

 

[coyote]

I just know that whenever you hear someone talk about how they can't settle in a monogamous relationship and need to have sexual partners here and there, they always bring up the lame excuse of "it's not normal to be me monogamous" or "my genes are telling me that I need sex". Your genes aren't telling you crap. Every normal person needs sex and lots of it. They just don't want to admit or fail to realize that they have deeper issues, like that girl from Venezuela probably has. It's the same old story over and over again. The older you get, the more transparent society becomes.

actually, it's something in my jeans that's telling me that i need sex

 

[vexatiousmind]

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial. Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution does weed out the " disorganized mutations"
It also keeps the beneficial ones.
Such as the common example of birds beaks.
If a mutation occurs that helps the bird get food, the bird will be mated with and, the gene will be passed on.
Whether or not you believe that an increase in a beneficial mutation within a species is evolution is up to you.
But species adapt and change, you can see that by looking at animals found all around the world.

Interesting stuff though.

 

[Newtype]

actually, it's something in my jeans that's telling me that i need sex

LOL, I'm sure this is why jeans were invented

 

[Pacific_Loner]

All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Are you sure it's not the opposite?
I've always thought that increasing entropy of a system meant that it was evolving towards equilibrium - which would mean "increased organization" or homogeneity....
I don't know. Maybe I'm just lost.

 

[vexatiousmind]

My fingers are tired from typing! lol. This is my last post of the night.

You are not discerning between macro and micro evolution. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins.

A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

I'm going to leave it there for now. This is actually straying very far off topic now and it isn't far on the original poster.

hehe yeah I wrote a term paper last year on micro-evolution.

But yeah that's why I put that it is up to on whether or not you consider it evolution.

Sorry for making you type so much::

 

[EnigmatiConduit]

This may sound weird, because I'd bet that a lot of males with social phobias fantasize about getting casual sex.

A friend of mine has this female friend from Venezuela who has been looking for a casual sex partner in the Americas. She saw me, found me attractive, and my friend set us up together.

She's been calling me for the past few days looking to set up a "date." My friend has also been bugging me, telling me to call her back.

1, I get tremendous performance anxiety during sexual encounters. I'd prefer to keep my sex confined to long term relationships. 2, I just broke up with my LT girlfriend and really want to spend time alone and doing what I enjoy doing, discovering myself, without incessant performance anxiety.

However, I set up the date. I feel like if I suddenly decline I'll lose face with my friend. This girl has been hurt before by casual sexual encounters, and I feel like if I fail to perform she will be hurt again. I really don't know how to refuse it...

Um if she has been hurt by it before, why is she doing it again? She's a big girl, let her make her own decisions. Do what you want and stop worrying about everyone one else.

 

[AGR]

Interesting stuff. I didn't know any of that.

You dont because such thing doesnt exist,people were not meant to be monogomous,thats why they have trouble being.

 

[Newtype]

You dont because such thing doesnt exist,people were not meant to be monogomous,thats why they have trouble being.

I'll never believe that. I think it's weak to think like that.