Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Enoc, Oct 10, 2011.
What did his mom think of his performance?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Well, they're not, and neither did you ...
Unless we presume that a person's belief and value system plays no role in how they behave, it would be reasonable to look into the various belief and value systems that lead people to a particular stance and behavior regarding sex.
What is an example of a cost and effect analysis that leads a person to conclude that it is worth it to engage in sex while not desiring to have children?
What is an example of a cost and effect analysis that leads a person to conclude that it is not worth it to engage in sex if they do not desire to have children?
What is an example of a cost and effect analysis that leads a person to conclude that it is not worth it to engage in sex at all?
This is a science forum, we should be able to investigate things, instead of resorting to "live and let live."
Er, because guys can get laid easily too. :bugeye:
A person who wishes sexuality to be part of a relationship with their partner, and thinks that that sexuality will bring them pleasure and a stronger relationship with their partner.
Someone who doesn't think sex is worth the effort unless it leads to children, because they want children.
Someone who doesn't think the advantages of sex outweigh the downsides. (Example - someone who finds sex annoying or painful.)
No. You may think that, but that is not the "societal norm." Intercourse does not equal sex, and sex does not equal intimacy. Nor do any of the above equal pregnancy, or risks to health. Nor is any of the five required by "societal norms."
Although people are, of course, pressured into a great many things by a great many people. The daughter whose parents pressure her to not have sex. The boyfriend who pressures her TO have sex. The parents of the son who want grandkids. The pressures of the church to avoid extramartal sex. There are a lot of pressures in both directions.
In all these examples above, a more detailed analysis is possible, don't you think?
For example, in your first example, an additional premise could be that said person believes that the risks and damages of hormonal contraceptives/abortions/bearing unwanted children are outweighed by having a relationship with the other person.
In the second example, an additional premise could be that it is not fair that women should be willing to pay and eventually pay with their health and even their life so that they can have a relationship with a man.
Yes. Or you could say that they think the risks are zero, or are not considered. Everyone's different, and everyone approaches it a different way.
If a person is diagnosed as "frigid" or "sexually dsyfunctional" by a medical professional and advised to seek treatment, then this does speak of an implicit societal norm.
For many people, including medical professionals, not having sex 3-4 times a week is considered as abnormal as having the blood sugar levels outside of the 64.8 to 104.4 mg/dL range.
There is no diagnosis of "frigid" in modern medicine.
There are a great many diagnoses of "sexual dysfunction" which come when a person's sexual performance is making them unhappy, causing them medical problems or causing problems in their relationships or employment. The principle there is that treatment will solve both the underlying problem and help them better deal with the resulting issues with their relationships.
However, if you were to go to a doctor and tell the doctor "I feel great, things are going well, I have friends and my family's doing well, and I'm not having sex" no sane doctor would tell you "you should seek treatment for your problems."
Going to have to call bullsh*t on that one. No doctor I know (including my wife) would call that abnormal - IF there are no other problems in the person's life.
Not at all. Its nature, man.
Me: Lets fack
Woman: Lets fack
billvon is right, there are only really a few reasons why a HCP would even care about someones sex life.
1) if the pt is a women could she be pregant (depending what she is being treated for it opens up some aditional potentual diognosis, complications with treatment and limits on the medications which can be used)
2) adiction: Is it interfearing with normal life or putting themsleves at significant risk
3) Libido (or other sexual issues) causing themselves distress
4) libido (or other sexual issues) causing there partner distress resulting in relationship issues
Each of these is treated differently, for instance a male with a low sex drive which is causing himself distress with first be assessed for psycological issues but would also possibly be diognosed viagra. Why is that? because men are generally visual so if they are erect they generally look at that and say "wow i must be horny" and so that fixes drive issues. Because there isnt the ovious visual arosal for women that isnt as effective for women.
now signal you go around constantly pushing your idiocy about sex being bad unless its for procreation. There are INNUMEABLE things i could point out to show your idocy. For instance i could show that all animals with long infancy periods have sex for pleasure (dolphins, apes and humans) rather than procreation because it is natures way of keeping the parents together to protect the progony. Therefore strong relationships (excluding asexuals) tend to be build on a strong sexual foundation to the point where yes, sex is used as a measure of the issues in a relationship (in relationship counciling, NOT in medicine). However its not a specific number but rather its how much sex do you have now rather than 6 months, 1 year ago ect.
I could also show the health benifits you so blithly dimiss:
Sex helps prevent cardiovascular disease
It helps with stress relief which in turn helps improve mental health, and potentually lowers rates and serverity of anxiaty disorder and depression which in turn lowers rates of sucide
this one i find facinating
Sex improves immune responce
It potentually lowers the risk of prostate cancer
And there are all sorts of other health benifits as well
These supposed "benefits" exist only for people who believe that the side-effects of hormonal contraceptives, abortions and bearing unwanted children are acceptable.
If the "benefits" you list above would be objective and natural, then every person would experience them, regardless of their circumstances, beliefs and values.
But they do not.
Asguard...nobody else may know when I'm having erections, but I know when I'm having erections
My wife and I are in the process of working out some communications issues...until recently I could find myself sitting around with a rather painful and annoying one for an hour or two at like...work.
For no apparent reason.
After last Sunday though, :thumbsup::yay: things are coming along reasonably well. She does have less of a drive though, so it is more important to me.
I don't know that she realizes sex would make me mellower and easier to put up with for the rest of the week. Not that I consciously pout, I'm just going to be calmer. Chemical reality.
Have to mention that.
no they can't. Women just have to say 'ok'
Men have to beg, hand over money, have social skills, etc.
I agree. My doctor has never ever asked how many times a week I was having sex. I would be a little taken aback if she did
please go study science and some statistics. Some med wouldnt hurt either because your "argument" is an irrelivent comment with nither understanding of the subject matter, relivance nor EVIDENCE. You sound like a 2 year old
chimp im really happy for you, its hard when there is that sort of disparity in labido in a relationship. Especially on top of everything else, i dont know if i have suggested this to you before but a sex theorpist might be able to help both of you together and sepratly.
As for your first statement im a little confused. Are you agreeing, disputing or making a seprate stament than the one of mine you quoted
LOL she was in another room. and just waited for him to come out so she could give him a ride home. Short apron strings might have been part of his problem as well.
and he was 22, not in his 30s. He looked a lot older.
The kid.wouldnt be norman baits would it?
If his dad was taking him instead of his Mom would he Norman Bates or would people say "good for his Dad"??
Separate names with a comma.