Is it immoral to have a sex buddy?

[DJmonster]

What your doing is calling into judgement her decision making skills. There's a fear here somewhere. PErhaps you afraid she'll cheat on you

You're right. I am judging her decision making skills, which I think I have the right to do, since I'm considering marrying this girl someday. I am not afraid she'll cheat on me.

 

[JohnJones]

I doubt she really thinks having carefree sex is a good thing. She may even think its a bad thing.

But, my guess is she goes defensive on the subject since implicit in any discussion like this is a judgment that she is "that kind of girl."

She may not be able to back down from her statements/opinions or whatever since (1) its moot because its done (2) she is with you and is not having emotionless sex and (3) she feels skanky/feels you think she is/are calling her skanky.

 

[NewMan]

Trying to change someone is a big, big mistake.

It only leads to resentment.

If you cannot accept who she is - and what she does - how she thinks - then you need to move on.

Disagreeing with her is all good - hell debate the subject - talk about it - but at the end of the day you need to accept her thoughts - or you need to move on.

I would imagine your a young guy from this post.


I think a huge part your missing here is that many relationships start out with meaningless sex. Sex out of lust. Sex out of desire.

I for one have had relationships out with a woman I just wanted to fvck. You start fvcking her - you get to know her - you hang out with her and you start to appreciate/get to know her - not just as someone your fvcking.


Let's be honest though -= there really is no such thing as meaningless sex.

 

[Kineti[C]harm]

Ok a good reason for a FB:

A couple girls I just had sex with, was nothing more really are now two of my very best friends and we share everything and are really close. I don't think I could have ever been that close with a girl I hadn't had sex with in that way.

 

[JT47319]

Originally posted by DJmonster

-To be sex buddies is to go against nature. It actually isn't a "discovery channel thing". Animals don't have sex just to have sex. Sure, it is acting on animalistic instinct, but a purely sexual relationship serves no natural purpose. (I know, you could say this about most sexual encounters, but at least meaningful, emotionally intimate sex, is a step towards sex's natural purpose -sex with the intent of reproduction)

This is incorrect. Both birds and monkeys have recreational sex.

 

[DJmonster]

Originally posted by NewMan
Trying to change someone is a big, big mistake.

It only leads to resentment.

If you cannot accept who she is - and what she does - how she thinks - then you need to move on.

Disagreeing with her is all good - hell debate the subject - talk about it - but at the end of the day you need to accept her thoughts - or you need to move on.

I would imagine your a young guy from this post.

I'm 24. Well said, I agree with all you say here.

I think a huge part your missing here is that many relationships start out with meaningless sex. Sex out of lust. Sex out of desire.

I for one have had relationships out with a woman I just wanted to fvck. You start fvcking her - you get to know her - you hang out with her and you start to appreciate/get to know her - not just as someone your fvcking.

This is true, but this is not a pre-arranged, FB, meaningles sex relationship.

Let's be honest though -= there really is no such thing as meaningless sex.

Maybe some people can just turn off their emotions
Yes, I agree with you, which is why I think it is unhealthy to try to have meaningless sex

 

[DJmonster]

This is incorrect. Both birds and monkeys have recreational sex.

It is not meaningless sex though. A dominant male monkey that is doing a female monkey when she can't get pregnant is probably the same dominant male monkey that is doing her when she can get pregnant. Also, monkeys don't have the freedom that humans do to make a choice between stimulus and response. Their desires overwhelm them. Ours, we can control. So, I guess the "going against nature argument" only applies to the nature of humans. Cavemen didn't have FBs.

Fvck Birds! They sh*t all over the place!

 

[MrBond007]

Originally posted by DJmonster
-To be sex buddies is to go against nature. It actually isn't a "discovery channel thing". Animals don't have sex just to have sex. Sure, it is acting on animalistic instinct, but a purely sexual relationship serves no natural purpose. (I know, you could say this about most sexual encounters, but at least meaningful, emotionally intimate sex, is a step towards sex's natural purpose -sex with the intent of reproduction)

Aren`t we not full of shit today?

Really..... sex buddies are against nature?

Considering that members of 95% of mammal species have many different sexual partners during their life, I therefore scientifically conclude that you are wrong.

BTW: Most animals do not have sex because it is nature`s way of doing but because they like to fuck.

Im wondering how you can come up with your "Ocus Pocus". DO you sit under a tree and wait for an apple to fall on your empty minded head?

 

[Porky]

DJMonster, how the hell can you say that having a f-buddy goes against nature? For your information, dolphins (and maybe dogs, I don't remember) as well as humans have sex for pleasure.

Humans do a lot of things that "go against nature." Your argument sucks.

 

[NewMan]

Humans were never designed this way - to have one sexual partner. Men were created to fvck. to bang as many chicks as possible - to breed.

Animals are the same way. That's why guys are so fixed on getting laid. It's in our nature to do so.

Way, way back when, there was no idea of marrage - man and wife - life partners. Men took women when they wanted. The strongest got their pick of the litter - the weak got what they could.

Society changed that. Organized communities changed that.

So as societies became "civilized" sex out of wedlock - chicks with unmarried kids etc. were looked down upon.

Now we have a stigma attached to women if they screw guys. Were it's the opposite for guys - they are the "Men" if they bang lot's of chicks.


It's how society has programmed us - much like all our other beliefs.

It's society and more to the point Religion that has put this stigma on sex. The whole thought of the chick is a hoe if she's slept with more than 1 guy.

Whatever.

I don't see the issue with a woman having sex for the enjoyment of it. She was honest about it with you.

I don't see there is any reason why this should bother you - and I don't think you've come up with anything. I just think your letting jealousy and ego get in the way.

 

[DJmonster]

Originally posted by MrBond007
Aren`t we not full of shit today?

Really..... sex buddies are against nature?

Considering that members of 95% of mammal species have many different sexual partners during their life, I therefore scientifically conclude that you are wrong.

BTW: Most animals do not have sex because it is nature`s way of doing but because they like to fuck.

Im wondering how you can come up with your "Ocus Pocus". DO you sit under a tree and wait for an apple to fall on your empty minded head?

You haven't scientifically concluded anything. You have only added something to what I see as my weakest argument for the immorality of the no strings attatched fvck buddy. Since it is in mans nature to have many different sexual partners in order to spread his seed, FBs opposes this. Having a FB means you are having sex with just one person with no intent to ever spread your seed with that person. FB serves no natural purpose.

Of course every animal "likes to fvck", and it is, as you call it, "nature's way of doing" (species survival)

 

[DJmonster]

Originally posted by Porky
DJMonster, how the hell can you say that having a f-buddy goes against nature? For your information, dolphins (and maybe dogs, I don't remember) as well as humans have sex for pleasure.

Humans do a lot of things that "go against nature." Your argument sucks.

Sure, having a f-buddy satisfies our natural urge and gives us pleasure, but like I said, it doesn't go along with nature's purpose for giving us that urge.

You are right, we do so many things that "go against human nature". This is my weakest argument, but I don't think it sucks.

 

[DJmonster]

Originally posted by NewMan
I don't see the issue with a woman having sex for the enjoyment of it. She was honest about it with you.

I don't see there is any reason why this should bother you - and I don't think you've come up with anything. I just think your letting jealousy and ego get in the way.

You know it doesn't bother me anymore because we talked about it and she agreed with me that having a fvck buddy is immoral. She still says it would be possible for her to try and have meaningless sex, but I think almost anybody would. I know I would jump at the chance if I wasn't in an LTR, even if I do think it is immoral.

I agree that a woman having sex purely for the enjoyment of it is not an issue. The issue I had was with her believing that sex buddies was just perfectly ok, which it turns out was just a miscommunication.

I hope you all can forgive me for this stupid post. I was really just looking for a discussion on the morality of sex buddies. I should have gone to a philosophy forum.

 

[Trickster_guy_2001]

Originally posted by DJmonster
I'm talking about when neither person is in a serious relationship, and they have both decided they don't want a relationship with each other.

I have never had one, so I'm not sure. You guys that have, did you feel guilty at all? Also, is it possible to have no strings attatched?

My girlfriend and I were debating this. Her and her ex decided they still wanted to be friends, and they were still messing around once in a while before she met me. She says it was meaningless and casual. To me, this seems wrong, but she thought it was ok. What do you guys think, right or wrong?

I don't think you will be sent to into the bowels of earth to be tortured and poked by little men with horns wearing red pajamas (for this one event)...but... I do think it's immoral. That's the way I was raised. That's the conclusion I came up with when I was old enough.

And I think that even if you personally don't believe in a literal hell, that you can definately make your own personal hell by the decisions you make and the consquences you have to take.

And at the very least, I personally think it's pretty stupid. Who knows how many "Friends with benifits" she's had? 4? 5? Not uncommon these days. Now, say that each of these guy friends has had 2 sexual relationships before her... That's like 10 people that you're "getting with" at the least. Never mind previous RELATIONSHIPS. And if she's pretty casual about something like this, most likely she's pretty casual about who she sleeps with.

Point is, it's a big risk, and for me, the risk is totally not worth it. Is the benefit worth the risk? There are a lot of risks with sex. Emotional, physical, spiritual, all that. It's up to you if you're willing to deal with whatever consequences you get. But DO be responsible at the least whatever you decide to do.

Also, I think that if you think it seems wrong, then you definately do not have to do it. You're not an animal. You're not a dog that has to hump someone's leg everytime you're in a sex mood. If something seems a little odd, maybe it's that little thing in your head called conscience... and maybe... subconsiously, you're seeing a problem that you can't quite put your finger on. And I might listen to that little voice. Sure, you may not "bone as many hot chicks" but you'll be a lot happier, and maybe a lot healthier.

Good luck.

 

[Canadiandon]

I had a sex buddy for about 1 year it was that hot red head that used to work in Seduction sex shop on yonge st down town T.O.

 

[MrBond007]

Originally posted by DJmonster
Since it is in mans nature to have many different sexual partners in order to spread his seed, FBs opposes this. Having a FB means you are having sex with just one person with no intent to ever spread your seed with that person. FB serves no natural purpose.

So what you are saying is that animals wake up in the mornin and deceide that its finally time to have kids? They just want to fuck but dont have condoms.

But who are we to argue with Djmonster from the internet? Screw facts! Opinions are made reality!