Friends With Benefits?

[MysterionMuffles]

What do people think about having friends benefits? Someone you aren't particularly dating, but get along well enough tp have sex with? Is it emotionally healthy or unhealthy to have this kind of relationship? This can also range from monogomous friends with benefits as well as polyamorous.

[SWMA]

Imho possible but long term it messes with most women and has to be stopped. In my experience (and shared stories with others) most men are able to have sex without (developing) feelings, most women are not. Your mileage may vary.

[J. D. Stembal]

I have the opposite personal experience to report as SWMA.

 

Outside of the collegiate environment where both sexes are often equally sexually liberalized (read: hyper-sexual), I have found that women are more amenable than men to the idea of casual, friendly or one time encounters. Perhaps I send an eye-candy or bad boy signal out to most women, but I have had the frustrating reoccurring experience of getting physically intimate with a woman, only to have her run the other direction when I begin to talk about upgrading it to a serious relationship in the following months.

 

When I was 22 and 23, I did the opposite and never broached the topic, and often resisted women who wanted to keep me honest. Personally, I was having too much fun flirting, chasing, and playing The Game. In this phase of my life, sexual intimacy would fall into my lap at regular intervals. I estimate that about half of my sexual partners have been casual or one time affairs.

 

As soon as I started to take women seriously at age 24 to 25, and attempted to not treat them as sex objects, they began to be repelled by me. It's as though they could sense that I was acting opposite to my nature. (He looks like a bad boy, but his words don't line up.) I recall one female acquaintance tell me straight up, "I'll fuck you, but you will never be my boyfriend." I was turned off by her candidness and lack of compassion for my feelings, and declined. It felt as though she took a rubber stamp and branded me with the slogan FUCK TOY on my forehead.

 

Obviously, that stamp was already there, and I didn't know it. I've only recently figured all this out, and avoid casual sexual encounters because it not what I want. My penis has had way too much to eat at the sex buffet already.

[adamNJ]

I am going to say, unhealthy, if you are a woman or a man.

[Pepin]

I think it depends a lot on the people. I don't think the vast majority of people would do well with that sort of relationship, but I think it can work in a small number of cases.

[Blackout]

I assume you wouldn't feel the need to ask if it's okay to play Monopoly with a friend you aren't romantically interested in, so you probably already understand on some level that sex is more risky and requires more emotional attachment than most recreational activities. So ask yourself why it is you want to do it; do you feel it would deepen the friendship or do you want commitment free sex and this friend just happens to be available?

[Bouncelot]

I have mulled the question over for many years, I have never had the opportunity, so never put any real focus on thinking it through.

 

I always come to the same conclusion though... me personally I don't believe in meaningless (purely physical) sex. I need to at the very least respect and care for the person. Given this, If I am single, she is single; I care for and respect this person... why would I not date them? That is something I have never gotten past.

The only situations I can think of where it "may work" is where the two people are extremely incompatible in some way that makes a real relationship not possible. Until recently I had not been able to figure out what sed incompatibility may be...

 

Recently an Ex brought it up as a possibility. We her, there was never anything "wrong" with us. It was just that her life was in a state where she does not have the capacity for everything a relationship entails (at least in her mind). She is also aware that she needs to work on herself before moving forward with anyone. That said, she is a monogomous type person, and has no interest in anyone other then me... It has created a really odd dynamic between us. So in this one case I have been trying to figure out if it would be healthy or not... 

[MMX2010]

I'm not going to answer RJ's question, but I am going to point out some flaws in the question and subsequent replies. 

 

 

(1) RJ doesn't define what "healthy" means, nor how to measure it, nor from whose perspective we ought to measure.  (Healthy for the man?  Healthy for the woman?  Healthy for the couple-as-a-whole?  Healthy for the children they conceive?  Healthy for everyone's children?  Healthy for most men?  Healthy for most women?) 

 

(2) No one else called out RJ's omission, which implies that everyone believes it's obvious what "healthy" is, how to measure it, and from whose perspective to measure.  (It's not obvious.)

 

(3) We're a sexually reproducing species; this fact alone implies that "Yes, casual sex is healthy, because we're a sexually reproducing species." is a much better starting argument than "No, casual sex isn't healthy." 

 

(4) The most extreme arguments demand the largest amount of objective evidence.  Contrast Pepin's non-extreme argument, "I think it depends a lot on the people. I don't think the vast majority of people would do well with that sort of relationship, but I think it can work in a small number of cases." with adamNJ's highly extreme argument, "I am going to say, unhealthy, if you are a woman or a man."  As philosophers, shouldn't we recognize extreme arguments and demand objective evidence for them?  And, as philosophers, if insufficient objective evidence is given, shouldn't we demand that those extreme arguments be surrendered? 

 

-------------------

 

(5) Lastly, an anecdote. 

 

An unidentified member of the FDR Community doesn't approve of Game / Pick-Up Artistry because he thinks they're dishonest and would never work on a virtuous woman.  He has implemented Pick-Up Artistry only once in his life on a hipster chick whom he was attracted to.  He used a horoscope opener and palm-reading to create such a strong and instantaneous sense of rapport that he got her phone number and knew she wanted to sleep with him.  He was filled with instant contempt and revulsion because he discovered that she wasn't virtuous, and decided that sleeping with her was a waste of his time. 

 

My counter-argument, (which I was never able to communicate to him because he "blocked me"), is this: (1) Stefan Molyneux currently has 235,000 subscribers.  I'll multiply that by 3 to estimate that he has 750,000 devoted fans.  (2) Every one of Stefan's fans speak English, but not all of his fans live in the United States, so I'll estimate that Stefan has 400,000 devoted American fans.  About 90% of these devoted fans are men, leaving 360K.  And about 75% of these are unattractive men, leaving 90K.  (Guys, I'm not saying that you're unattractive, I'm citing research from OKCupid, which estimates that women on that website find approximately 75% of the male customers unattractive.)    Lastly, not nearly all 90K of these individuals live in the same city as the female hipster, so you can estimate that approximately 2,250 attractive male, devoted Stef-fans live in her city. 

 

(3) Google says there are about 320,000,000 (320 Million) Americans.  About half of these are under 18, leaving 160M.  About half of these are female, leaving 80M.  About three-fourths of these are unattractive men, leaving 20M.  Lastly, not nearly all 20M live in the same city as the female hipster, so you can estimate that approximately 500,000 attractive men live in her city. 

 

(4) Modern twenty-something women DO NOT seek male mentors along the following conditions, "He's smart, morally upright, successful, and has a well-put-together life BUT I DON'T WANT TO SLEEP WITH HIM."  Instead, if a modern woman seeks a male mentor, she'll always use the following conditions, "He's smart, morally upright, successful, and has a well-put-together life and so I want to sleep with him."

 

(5) The unidentified FDR member views himself as virtuous.  But he never considered dividing The Number Of Attractive Male Stef-Fans In The Hipster's City (2250 people) by The Number Of Attractive Males In The Hipster's City (500,000 people). 

 

The result is the fraction 1/222.  This means that, for the hipster to face-to-face meet another attractive male Stef-fan, she'd have to get to know approximately 222 attractive men. 

 

Think about how large the number 222 is.  That's about 20 times larger than the number of sexual partners a woman will have in her lifetime.  So, from her perspective, meeting him was literally a once-in-a-lifetime experience. 

 

And did he introduce her to philosophy?  Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? 

 

No, he didn't.  And no, he didn't. 

 

Because he was filled with instant revulsion and decided that sleeping with her was a waste of his time. 

 

And so, my counter-argument is that no one is more unhealthy than this unidentified FDR member, because he had a chance to have consensual casual sex with a woman he was attracted to - and whom he could've spread philosophy to - BUT was filled with such revulsion that he didn't even think, "Hey, I can sleep with her, and then introduce her to philosophy...." 

 

He didn't realize the opportunity he had, because he couldn't empathize with her desire for sex - nor was he willing to risk some heartache and wasted time by introducing her to philosophy while having sex with her. 

[MysterionMuffles]

You can talk to me directly instead of referring to me in 3rd person. You know you didn't have to take part of my thread if you were still under the impression that I had you on ignore. I don't. I actually find some of your posts interesting and informative when you're not levelling yourself above others. Mainly the stuff you talk about in terms of masculinity and sexuality as I am reading David Deida's book The Way of the Superior Man. So MMX2010, I have respect for your knowledge and wisdom, but still take some issue in your approach to debates as well the affair you're having with your mistress. But I can do my best to divorce my issues with your lifestyle from what you actually have to say as I trudge through your post here.

 

(1) RJ doesn't define what "healthy" means, nor how to measure it, nor from whose perspective we ought to measure.  (Healthy for the man?  Healthy for the woman?  Healthy for the couple-as-a-whole?  Healthy for the children they conceive?  Healthy for everyone's children?  Healthy for most men?  Healthy for most women?) 

 

Healthy means do your actions add up to your innate desires? As Blackout pointed out, having sex is an intimate act in which you develop emotional attachment to someone. If you have a friend with benefits that you get along well with on a personal level and a sexual level, would it not make sense to just be a couple and be exclusive? I'm not against casual sex, people can do it all they want, just accept risks of STD's and pregnancy, and be careful. However, healthy in this context refers to emotional happiness based on reality. If you have a friend with benefits and you have sex on a consistent basis, you are training your body to prefer them over others. To know of them sleeping with someone else, even in the non-jealous type of person, STILL invokes a degree of jealousy. In that sense, it's not healthy to have this casual sexual relationship when you really want to be exclusive with someone. 

 

But are there cases in which friends with benefits can really have an open relationship, being free to have sex with numerous different partners, get together and really not let their experience as a "couple" in the moment of passion be hampered by the idea that they have to "share" each other with other people? I could be wrong, but judging from the friends I've had, polyamory tends to require a great deal of mental gymnastics to be okay with enacting. Whereas my friends who are in functional healthy monogomous relationships, they don't have to justify themselves to anyone. They're just A COUPLE and don't have to worry about getting jealous of other people to be sharing their partner with because of the agreed monogomy and exclusivity. 

 

Mental gymnastics refers to constantly reinforcing the idea to ones self and others that "yeah we just have sex on the side. They're a cool friend too, but I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them because x, y, and z," whereas (again only from my experience and what I've witnessed), monogomous relationships require less reason to justify. They are just acting out what their biology naturally demands of them; pair bonding to ensure monopoly over each other's eggs and sperm.

 

(2) No one else called out RJ's omission, which implies that everyone believes it's obvious what "healthy" is, how to measure it, and from whose perspective to measure.  (It's not obvious.)

 

As stated above, you measure one's healthiness based on how conrguent their thoughts and feelings are with the reality of the relationship. If you have a friend with benefits, how much meaning do they have in your life aside from sexual release? If they are emotionally and intelligently fulfilling to be around, why not take it to the next level and be exclusive? If you don't really like this person, find their personality repulsive, but at least easy to get sexual release from them, why are you training your hormones to get emotionally attached to someone you don't even like? Both cases are unhealthy because in the former, having to share them with other people is degrading your own preferences. You prefer that they choose you over others, and not in a possessive kind of way, but in the sense that you've built that rapport and emotional attachment, yet you're not solidifying it by making it exclusive. Or even within the former, say that they don't have any other partners other than you, and neither do you. What's stopping you from being simply committed to each other instead of staying in this null zone of a relationship where it's unclear where you stand.

 

(3) We're a sexually reproducing species; this fact alone implies that "Yes, casual sex is healthy, because we're a sexually reproducing species." is a much better starting argument than "No, casual sex isn't healthy."

 

 Casual sex can be healthy, we need the release from time to time. I'm not saying that casual sex is unhealthy, but it's like what Stef says. It's junk food compared to the nutritious sex with a committed partner because with them you build rapport and connection, thus driving preference over others. Having a consistent sex partner, whether they're just a friend with benefits or an actual romantic partner, you are taking time to create familiarity in routine. That kind of rapport, especially in our more civilized society, is what is needed of sexual partners who end up having children and raising them properly. This vs the spray and pray method, having numerous children with a variety of different partners create discord and inconsistency within the children's lives if any happend to come into the picture. People are free to have casual sex all the way want, I'm not saying it's unhealthy. But in the long run, it takes a toll on you especially if you do have the desire to settle down and start a family.

 

I would appreciate you don't make assumptions. I didn't say casual sex isn't healthy, I was simply asking an open ended question on what people thought. If I was already dead set on this stance, I would've opened up the post with making similar but even more absolutist statements as I have earleir in my response to you.

 

 

(4) The most extreme arguments demand the largest amount of objective evidence.  Contrast Pepin's non-extreme argument, "I think it depends a lot on the people. I don't think the vast majority of people would do well with that sort of relationship, but I think it can work in a small number of cases." with adamNJ's highly extreme argument, "I am going to say, unhealthy, if you are a woman or a man."  As philosophers, shouldn't we recognize extreme arguments and demand objective evidence for them?  And, as philosophers, if insufficient objective evidence is given, shouldn't we demand that those extreme arguments be surrendered? 

 

Take that up with them. I can't speak for them.

 

-------------------

 

(5) Lastly, an anecdote. 

 

An unidentified member of the FDR Community doesn't approve of Game / Pick-Up Artistry because he thinks they're dishonest and would never work on a virtuous woman.  He has implemented Pick-Up Artistry only once in his life on a hipster chick whom he was attracted to.  He used a horoscope opener and palm-reading to create such a strong and instantaneous sense of rapport that he got her phone number and knew she wanted to sleep with him.  He was filled with instant contempt and revulsion because he discovered that she wasn't virtuous, and decided that sleeping with her was a waste of his time. 

 

My counter-argument, (which I was never able to communicate to him because he "blocked me"), is this: (1) Stefan Molyneux currently has 235,000 subscribers.  I'll multiply that by 3 to estimate that he has 750,000 devoted fans.  (2) Every one of Stefan's fans speak English, but not all of his fans live in the United States, so I'll estimate that Stefan has 400,000 devoted American fans.  About 90% of these devoted fans are men, leaving 360K.  And about 75% of these are unattractive men, leaving 90K.  (Guys, I'm not saying that you're unattractive, I'm citing research from OKCupid, which estimates that women on that website find approximately 75% of the male customers unattractive.)    Lastly, not nearly all 90K of these individuals live in the same city as the female hipster, so you can estimate that approximately 2,250 attractive male, devoted Stef-fans live in her city. 

 

(3) Google says there are about 320,000,000 (320 Million) Americans.  About half of these are under 18, leaving 160M.  About half of these are female, leaving 80M.  About three-fourths of these are unattractive men, leaving 20M.  Lastly, not nearly all 20M live in the same city as the female hipster, so you can estimate that approximately 500,000 attractive men live in her city. 

 

(4) Modern twenty-something women DO NOT seek male mentors along the following conditions, "He's smart, morally upright, successful, and has a well-put-together life BUT I DON'T WANT TO SLEEP WITH HIM."  Instead, if a modern woman seeks a male mentor, she'll always use the following conditions, "He's smart, morally upright, successful, and has a well-put-together life and so I want to sleep with him."

 

(5) The unidentified FDR member views himself as virtuous.  But he never considered dividing The Number Of Attractive Male Stef-Fans In The Hipster's City (2250 people) by The Number Of Attractive Males In The Hipster's City (500,000 people). 

 

The result is the fraction 1/222.  This means that, for the hipster to face-to-face meet another attractive male Stef-fan, she'd have to get to know approximately 222 attractive men. 

 

Think about how large the number 222 is.  That's about 20 times larger than the number of sexual partners a woman will have in her lifetime.  So, from her perspective, meeting him was literally a once-in-a-lifetime experience. 

 

And did he introduce her to philosophy?  Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? 

 

No, he didn't.  And no, he didn't. 

 

Because he was filled with instant revulsion and decided that sleeping with her was a waste of his time. 

 

And so, my counter-argument is that no one is more unhealthy than this unidentified FDR member, because he had a chance to have consensual casual sex with a woman he was attracted to - and whom he could've spread philosophy to - BUT was filled with such revulsion that he didn't even think, "Hey, I can sleep with her, and then introduce her to philosophy...." 

 

He didn't realize the opportunity he had, because he couldn't empathize with her desire for sex - nor was he willing to risk some heartache and wasted time by introducing her to philosophy while having sex with her. 

 

I'm failing to see what the point of this anecdote was. You just proved the point that PUA is dishonest and manipulative, assuming that he doesn't care for palm reading and horoscope stuff. Like if he's into that stuff already, then that's an issue of its own, but if he only used it to pick up this woman, it would be dishonest to do that bait and switch. "Hey! Let's use irrational and unempirical beliefs to attract a woman to have sex with, and now that I've earned her trust through intimate physical bonding, I'm gonna show my true self and introduce her to philosophy."

 

Yeah...no. If she was attracted to the front he put while using PUA strategy, it IS dishonest to turn 180 and become philosophical. On his end that's a lack of integrity and conviction with his principles. On her end, that is a whole other level of dysfunction to be attracted to such inconsistent behaviour that I don't even have to get into great detail here. She would basically be saying "I'm okay with being lied to have sex with a man, and then all of a sudden being baited and switched into an honest mode of communication with him." That's basically her invoking double think in her mind and bending to the will of the man instead of living consistently with her own values either. Whether they're rational or not. It's inconsistent to use one strategy to pick someone up, and then use a whole different approach to maintaining a relationship.

 

This FDR member doesn't have the obligation to introduce philosophy to women he sleeps with, let alone the ones he uses anti-philosophical principles to attract in the first place.

I have mulled the question over for many years, I have never had the opportunity, so never put any real focus on thinking it through.

 

I always come to the same conclusion though... me personally I don't believe in meaningless (purely physical) sex. I need to at the very least respect and care for the person. Given this, If I am single, she is single; I care for and respect this person... why would I not date them? That is something I have never gotten past.

The only situations I can think of where it "may work" is where the two people are extremely incompatible in some way that makes a real relationship not possible. Until recently I had not been able to figure out what sed incompatibility may be...

 

Recently an Ex brought it up as a possibility. We her, there was never anything "wrong" with us. It was just that her life was in a state where she does not have the capacity for everything a relationship entails (at least in her mind). She is also aware that she needs to work on herself before moving forward with anyone. That said, she is a monogomous type person, and has no interest in anyone other then me... It has created a really odd dynamic between us. So in this one case I have been trying to figure out if it would be healthy or not... 

 

As I mentioned in my response to MMX, you are desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that. Therefore, it creates some ambivelance in you. How much do you have to reason yourself into thinking that it's okay to just have her on the side, while there is that possibility she does want to work on herself and become monogomous. Whatever it is that's causing her to think she can't handle the monogomy...does she not realize she's already acting in nature without defining it for what it already is?

[BaylorPRSer]

I think feelings get involved.  If you're having sex with someone with any regularity (once a month or more is how I'd define that), you're lying to yourselves if you think feelings won't get involved.  If you're going to sleep with a friend, do what you can to ensure that it's a one time thing.  I feel pretty convinced that the friends with benefits arrangement is not good for you psychologically.

[utopian]

I think that ideally, it would be best for everyone to find a virtuous partner to settle down and have kids with. However, as a guy, especially a younger guy these days, there are very few virtuous women to choose from. Those that are, probably are already taken. It is impractical to go through life believing the one is just around the corner in these situations. I think in the "current events" section someone posted a link that said more women in their 30s are going without kids. Those women will likely never have children, or perhaps worse, have kids at ages that risk more disabilities. Likewise, I would like to find a virtuous philosophical woman I could raise kids with, but I'll never hold my breath. FWBs makes sense until you find the unicorn.

[Crallask]

Why use an onahole that comes with added risks?

 

Why use a dildo that has the same?

 

I see no benefit to this type of entanglement - just a sad denial of potential underlying costs. 

 

For me - I have pornography. If I want to let one out without commitment then there's  more flavors of lewd material than there is of Baskin Robins. 

[ragdoll]

And did he introduce her to philosophy?  Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? 

 

LOL This is hilarious

 

Although, I do sort of agree with him.  Most of you guys on the forum seem depressed about not finding an already virtuous person to share your life with but I think that you should do as Stef suggests and find women that can think and then try and make (for lack of a better word) them virtuous.  Neither me or my wife were virtuous people in a lot of ways but we both had some virtuous values and shared an ability to reason.  And years later into both of us pushing each other to become better and more virtuous people we are drastically better people than we were before we got together.

[GA_Freeman]

I will say that from my point of view, as a male, I get along with most everyone well enough to have sex with them. To me, getting along with them does not indicate that it is worthwhile or a wise decision to have sex with someone.

 

I am an older gentleman   now and so I say this with all openness and suggest you take it with a grain of salt. In my experience, sex always changes the relationship. For me, if I had a high level of energy and interest around someone and then I had sex with them, I would ultimately lose interest in them. Therefore, for me, casual sex or easy sex meant that someone would never be more than a friend whom I've had sex with.

 

So is this unhealthy or in some way bad? Having casual sex or sex with friends. I don't think it is healthy but I cannot find a moral issue as long as everyone is in honest and voluntarily engaged. I do find that when friends begin to engage in sexual activity that it is hard to understand how another person is going to internalize or perceive that sexual encounter. In other words, I find it's very hard for two friends to be completely honest with each other about their intentions around sex. For two people to be completely honest about sex, both people must have good self-knowledge and understand their own driving factors for there to be real honesty about the ability of an individual to accept casual sex as it is.

 

The thread above has indicated how difficult it is to find quality individuals. I don't think that having casual sex or casual sex with friends is necessarily unhealthy. However, I don't see how it teaches you to find something more in a relationship in the future.

 

My personal experience is that I am one of the people that even if I want to have a “friends with benefits” relationship, my partners have tended to escalate it and become problematic. My longtime best friend has slept with hundreds of women, most of them friends, and when he finally got married, he was not able to pick a woman based on real values. He picked, in my opinion, someone who he thought would be fun and meet his sexual needs for a long time. This has not turned out to be true.

 

This is my opinion and anecdotal evidence that it is difficult to pull off “friends with benefits”. But I have no moral argument or direct evidence that it is unhealthy. My experience is that most people are generally not self-aware and are generally unhealthy and so these types of relationships can be difficult or dangerous (crazy pussy).

[levi w]

I think it has more to do with the person your having benifits with than anything. I have had good and bad experiences with these situations

[Eh Steve]

A funny thought crossed my mind...

 

Define: Benefits.

 

We are talking about sex specifically as a benefit.

 

But theoretically, joke telling, intimacy, honesty, intelligence, someone to go rock climbing with, someone who loves the same things you do, these could all be considered benefits as well.  In my head I kind of wonder... maybe sex with friends is depriving us of these other benefits.  And if this person has all these other benefits why not just date them exclusively?  And if they don't have other benefits you find irresistible..to what extent is having sex with them taking away time hunting down someone you love.

 

I've personally never been able to separate sex from bonding with anyone I cared at all about.  So it always seemed the only option to me was one night stands with people I didn't particularly like, sex with friends which ended up becoming romantically interested, or sex within a committed relationship.  The problem for me has always been sex with people I don't particularly care about isn't any fun.  And sex with people who I'm friends with or like...well we either don't get the time to get to know eachother which makes the bonding feel weird, or we spoil a relationship by having sex before knowing eachother.  I never found a way to suggest friends with benefits was a good idea.  Especially as I'm getting older and wanting kids...it just seems like a big waste of time in a more significant way than other wastes of time, since your heart gets muddled and takes a while to repair.

[DaviesMa]

I think there are a few things that may be defined as possible unhealthy consequences:

 

• Possible pregnancy
• The opportunity cost for the woman of her declining sexual market value
• The risk of getting hurt by one person developing more feelings and the neediness and loss of self respect of the needy person
• The break up leading to the person closing their heart to others

I think most of this can be mitigated by choosing a person who is emotionally healthy and resilient and maybe even asking how they have handled break ups in the past, etc. For a man in particular, a casual liason with an unstable woman is only a recipe for misery.

 

 

(I don't see a moral dimension to it if you presume that the other person has free will and they are aware of the level of non commitment.)

[Bouncelot]

 

As I mentioned in my response to MMX, you are desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that. Therefore, it creates some ambivelance in you. How much do you have to reason yourself into thinking that it's okay to just have her on the side, while there is that possibility she does want to work on herself and become monogomous. Whatever it is that's causing her to think she can't handle the monogomy...does she not realize she's already acting in nature without defining it for what it already is?

 

It is a little different then that. It is not that she does not desire monogamy. She "thinks" that she is not capable of anything but a one sided relationship in her current state. She is currently in an abusive relationship where she is financially dependent on her abuser (mother). She has started to "wake up" and see her situation for what it is. She is currently working on herself, her self-knowledge, and her finances in order to deal with the situation. She has realized the issues with her past relationships, and her part the unhealthy aspects of them; and has decided that she should not pursue a romantic relationship(with anybody) until she is "better". However she still has a need for intimacy and "release"; and intends that if we do the FWB thing it would be monogamous.

 

I am aware of a number of flaws in her thinking, she doesn't see them, yet. Things like, in her mind a relationship is a "burden". Or as you pointed out, the fact that what she desires with me is actually a monogamous relationship. Somehow in her mind it is "different" and that takes the pressure off of her and allows her to focus on herself.

 

I am fully aware that this may go sideways. That she may not continue her pursuit of self knowledge, or may regress. Or in her pursuit she may discover that her desire of me is unhealthy. It is a risk. I just want to make sure that we do not harm each other in the process.

[adamNJ]

 And, as philosophers, if insufficient objective evidence is given, shouldn't we demand that those extreme arguments be surrendered? 

No, evidence has come out and it points towards it being harmful to your long term marriage.  So it is harmful.

[bitcoin]

As far as I know this has been addressed on FDR (and others--- Daniel Mackler, etc.) to exhaustion.

 

It is most certainly unhealthy for one's mental health, puts physical health at risk and has no real long-term, positive value. 

 

Why would someone want to have casual sex with another person? From what I know, it is because they either don't mind messing with other people (they are cold), don't mind finding an escape (essentially an addiction) and / or are afraid of having a deep, intimate emotional connection. 

 

As far as I know, competent therapist would never recommend anyone go out an have a lot of sex with people you are very passionate or interested in.

[MMX2010]

I'm failing to see what the point of this anecdote was. You just proved the point that PUA is dishonest and manipulative, assuming that he doesn't care for palm reading and horoscope stuff. Like if he's into that stuff already, then that's an issue of its own, but if he only used it to pick up this woman, it would be dishonest to do that bait and switch

 

You can't "win" this argument by appealing to "dishonesty and manpulativeness", RJ. 

 

For one thing, you're using the anonymous FDR-member's actions to negatively generalize about PUA-in-general.  That's invalid, because generalizations involving large numbers of people require studying a large number of people. 

 

Second, you've never studied any PUA-manuals, nor have you implemented PUA yourself.  Hence, your opinion isn't based on your personal experience with PUA, but with what you may have heard (or just believe) about PUA. 

 

Third, in Stefan's only podcast that directly addresses PUA, he simultaneously stated that: (1) "He hasn't really studied PUA." and (2) "From what he's read, PUAs habitually lie to women - and, in lying to women, they become enslaved to women's approval."  This is dishonest and manipulative because he should've studied PUA much more deeply before making a generalization about PUAs and because lying IS NOT an essential part of PUA.  Yes, some PUA's lie, but the majority of PUAs do not.  (This is exactly how lying IS NOT an essential part of studying philosophy or chemistry, and yet some people who study philosophy or chemistry will lie.) 

 

Fourth, if a PUA understands that palm-reading and horoscopes are designed to create rapport, using horoscopes and palm-reading IS NOT dishonest nor manipulative.  (This is exactly like knowing that telling jokes, introducing yourself to a woman, or asking her about her hobbies are also designed to create rapport - which means there's no "dishonesty" or "manipulation" in doing any of those three actions.) 

 

 

---------------------

 

Finally, you don't understand the point of the anecdote, but Ragdoll totally gets it.    You'll notice that Ragdoll is married - while neither you, nor the anonymous FDR-member you're defending are married.  (This is important.) 

 

The point of the anecdote is as follows: (1) The anonymous FDR-member DOES NOT WANT a not-yet virtuous woman whom he can (hopefully, but not 100%-guaranteed because women have agency) mold into a virtuous woman.  Instead, he wants a WOMAN WHO IS ALREADY VIRTUOUS whom he can just introduce himself to...and romance is kindled.  (2) When Stefan Molyneux met his future-wife, she was a statist, religious, non-Defoo'ed woman who continued to maintain a relationship with her abusive-parents.  (I remember him saying those three things about her.)  Everyone on FDR agrees that those three things are a sign of non-virtue - but Stefan coached her while dating her - (and, perhaps, after sleeping with her even though they weren't yet married - and I'm saying perhaps because I don't remember him directly saying this.) 

 

Here's the important part: When you compared Stefan-on-the-day-he-met-Christina to the anonymous FDR-member-on-the-day-he-felt-revulsion-towards-the-hipster-girl, the following things are readily apparent: (1) Stefan is significantly more philosophically sound.  (2) Stefan is significantly happier.  (3) Stefan takes much better care of his body.  (4) Stefan has always known how to flirt with women.  (5) Stefan is much more patient with bad arguments, and is much more willing to steer people through them.  (6) Stefan is older and wiser.  (7) Stefan has much more ambition, particularly with regard to spreading philosophy and helping others.  (8) All of the above are things that virtuous women look for when seeking a virtuous husband - which means that women find Stefan significantly more virtuous and attractive.  

 

And yet, despite Stefan's enormous virtue-advantage only Stefan was willing to mold a not-yet-virtuous woman into a virtuous-woman.  And his willingness to mold a woman into virtue LED TO Freedomain Radio and the birth of Isabella. 

 

If narcissism is defined as the gap between What You Think You Deserve and What You Really Deserve, the FDR-member you're defending is highly narcissistic.  He's far below Stefan with regard to just about everything that matters to a virtuous woman AND he wants an already virtuous woman to love him. 

 

This narcissism is revealed in two equally sad ways:

 

(1) If he were transported back in time to the week before Stefan first met Christina, and he met Christina, he would think she isn't good enough for him.  (I can see his diary entry, "Met this bland-looking chick.  Found out she was an Greek Orthodox statist who maintains relationships with her abusive parents.  How lame.  Where are the virtuous women!?!") 

 

(2) If *I* were to somehow meet that hipster chick, use PUA on her to create rapport, engage in casual sex with her, introduce her to philosophy, guide her into virtue, and then decide we weren't long-term compatible, I would have increased the number of virtuous, marriageable women in the world by one.  And if, two months after she and I broke up, the anonymous FDR-member were to re-meet her and discover she was virtuous, he would refuse to associate with her after discovering that she slept with me.    This is because he wrongfully thinks that PUA only works on non-virtuous women and because he doesn't want a non-virtuous woman to become virtuous by sleeping with other men.  He ONLY wants a virtuous woman to become virtuous by listening to Stefan, or him, or another virtuous person. 

 

 

So, in the end, it doesn't really matter whether he thinks PUA is dishonest and manipulative, because his usage of PUA was dishonest and manipulative.  Worse, it reveals the gap between What He Thinks He Deserves and What He Really Deserves. 

 

Also, it doesn't really matter whether you think PUA is dishonest and manipulative, because you haven't studied it, and you defend someone who didn't study it very deeply either. 

 

If you were to read Roosh's excellent PUA guide entitled Bang!, his first chapter speaks about "mindset" and "intention".  If you want to use PUA to create happiness and rapport in others, PUA will inevitably do that.  If you want to use PUA to strengthen your embittered, entitled attitude towards women, PUA will inevitably do that.  If you want to use PUA to strengthen your ability to handle discomfort, PUA will inevitably do that.  And if you want PUA to either heal or maintain your current personality-dysfunctions, PUA will do that.  Whatever you want PUA to do, it will inevitably do. 

 

(Ironically, the same can be said for philosophy.) 

 

And your (and his) unwillingness to address what PUA actually says inevitably leads him to speak authoritatively about PUA - despite not understanding it.  Which just makes him (and you) wrong about PUA. 

[MysterionMuffles]

MMX2010, you bring up a good point. One that I totally agree with. I do recall Stef's story about meeting Christina and where she began. I've always held the belief that as long as a woman is curious and compassionate, no matter what her beliefs are, she's worth investing in. Relationships are good for two people to see the best and worst in each other, but ultimately for the sake of emotional health (as I would like to bring the thread back to its original throughline), it's best for the couple to work toward making the best of themselves in order to bring the best out of each other. If one person is resentful and not looking in themselves to see what they can improve, then they carry with them a weight of resistance, thus blocking the possibility of any growth for them as individuals and a couple.

 

But don't assume I haven't read any PUA literature. I've read some from Chris Anderson, and although his approach rings true at a primal level, some of it seemed kind of rapey. Like using micro-escalations in your interactions (which can also be seen as micro-aggressions lol), wherin you focus on attracting a woman by physical cues. Makes sense. A woman can reject you verbally if you try to pick her up based in verbal communication, but touching and moving closer in on them, can't be rejected. I disagree with the pushiness he puts forth with that logic, as I think relying purely on physical escalation, being a primal thing, can probably only attract primal woman. There has to be a steady balance between the verbal and physical. Yes we are sexual beings and we connect viscerally, but we have evolved to also have intellectual needs, and so the verbal rapport is equally important. 

 

I've also watched some stuff by Kezia Noble, a female PUA teacher/wing girl, who taught me about standing out and having a presence, as well as the importance of passing the bitch test. I've also read David Copeland and Ron Luis's book How to Succeed With Women, front to back, and what I learned most from it is not depending female validation for my happiness, and actually living the happiest life I possibly can with or without them. Women can sniff out whether or not you're hungry for their attention, and they will test/reject/accept you accordingly. If you want her too much, but she has self respect, she will be put off by your neediness. If you want her too much, but she has no self respect, she will make damn sure you remain dependant on her affections to keep you happy. But ultimately, if you've worked on yourself enough to be happy all on your own terms, you will attract generally more mentally/emotionally healthy women.

 

There's also Coach Corey Wayne, but he's more of a relationship expert than he is a PUA instructor, so no need to get into his stuff...

 

So you cannot claim what I haven't read PUA material, MMX2010. I have my disagreements and assumptions with all of the literature and videos I've consumed. But ultimately, I have taken taken away the positive stuff that coincide with philosophy (like most especially the self knowledge and neurolinguistic aspects of them), and disregarded the stuff that does predicate on lying, manipulation, and simply being all about getting laid on the first date or sleeping with as many women as possible. I won't get into detail on those here, but I would like to know what you think because I think we actually are on the same page, MMX2010.

 

The only clearest gripe I have with the PUA stuff is the material that is too focussed on simply getting laid as quick and as often as possible. But any PUA material that is actually about attracting long term relationships (such as the case with How to Succeed With Women), I will give the benefit of the doubt.

[Hannibal]

As far as I know this has been addressed on FDR (and others--- Daniel Mackler, etc.) to exhaustion.

 

It is most certainly unhealthy for one's mental health, puts physical health at risk and has no real long-term, positive value. 

 

Why would someone want to have casual sex with another person? From what I know, it is because they either don't mind messing with other people (they are cold), don't mind finding an escape (essentially an addiction) and / or are afraid of having a deep, intimate emotional connection. 

 

As far as I know, competent therapist would never recommend anyone go out an have a lot of sex with people you are very passionate or interested in.

 

This is absurd. "Why would someone want to have casual sex with another person?" tells me that you're not qualified to say that it's unhealthy for one's mental health. (i.e. if you have to ask why then surely you don't understand it)

 

Why would I?

Because it's fun.  Almost everyone would agree that having a variety of friends to have fun with is a good thing - so there's one reason right there. I see different friends with different demeanours dependant of what mood I'm in. I like to have sex with different female friends depending on what mood i'm is - they all tend to be different in that respect.

 

 

Because I enjoy the female body, and sex is the most 'hands on' you can get - just like watching the countryside on TV isn't the same as hiking through it for real. And when enjoying the countryside I don't just visit one area for the rest of my life. I like to enjoy and explore different places I've not seen before. I like to visit desert landscapes, mountainous landscapes, woodlands and oceans. In the same way I like skinny women, chubby women, muscular women & all of those in various colour combinations. I have my preferences, but just because I prefer one thing less doesn't mean i'd like to never have it at all.

 

Stef has said before - 'why eat out when you have steak at home' and 'what is that saying to your significant other?'.  Well it's saying that although I really like steak, I don't want it EVERY single time I eat. 

What's more, if you really do have steak at home then you're lucky. Physical attraction is only one element in a well matched partner, and often chicken is a perfectly suitable dinner when everything else is good too. 

 

You'd have to mad to believe that your partner thinks that you'll always be the most attractive person they'll ever have met. It's statistically incredibly unlikely, and I won't be little my wife by making such a silly supposition.

 

 

Some people don't separate the emotion from the physical. Thats fine and a friend with benefits probably isn;t for them. But many, like myself, see sex purely as recreation. Sure, there is some emotion in it for me - I don't like the idea of sleeping with random strangers. But that healthy in just the same way that I don't do any kind of recreational activity with complete strangers. I'm selective about who I spend my time with - and for sex to be fun I need to actually like the other person. 

 

Moreover, i'd go as far as to say that I could potentially care deeply about said friend with benefits. To suggest that you can't love more than one person at the same time is silly. I'd prefer not to go too far that way with someone because, assuming that they or I are single at the time, that makes it potentially harder to get a proper partner. At the very least it's a distraction. But in the same way that I can love a male friend I can love a female friend. One I might drink beer with and have meaningful conversations, and the other i might have sex with and have meaningful conversations. You just need to be careful with who you have sex with in the same way that you probably shouldn't go drinking with a friend who has a drink problem. Whether the sex or booze is considered a 'problem' is dependant entirely on context.

 

 

"Why would someone want to have casual sex with another person? " -- already covered.

 

"From what I know, it is because they either don't mind messing with other people (they are cold)" -- it's a mutual trade. I'm not sure where you get this idea from.

 

"don't mind finding an escape (essentially an addiction) " -- or just understand that life is for enjoying. 

 

"and / or are afraid of having a deep, intimate emotional connection. " -- or alternatively they are better at having deep & intimate emotional connections with people. Hiding behind one single partner strikes me as being much more likely to be a symptom of emotional dysfunction.

 

 

At the end of the day we're all grown up & consenting adults. We are capable of picking and choosing how to behave with other grown adults. Some combinations of sex partners would be a bad idea. Others would be a good idea. To call it defacto unhealthy is to project your own psychology onto everyone else. I'm not saying yours is damaged - just that it isn't representative on the whole. More often than not, in my experience, the problem is that people have jealousy issues, or self-confidence/worth issues. When it's pure recreation, and you have the decency and strength of will to ensue that it's also purely recreational for your partner, then I think that it's actually very good for one's mental health.  Relationships shouldn't be about sacrifice. Whether that relation be husband & wife, or fuck buddy & fuck buddy. Just be grown up enough to recognise when it's dangerous and when it's safe.

[MysterionMuffles]

Hanibal, are you married? Or is this wife you refer to hypothetical?

[MMX2010]

I won't get into detail on those here, but I would like to know what you think because I think we actually are on the same page, MMX2010.

 

The only clearest gripe I have with the PUA stuff is the material that is too focussed on simply getting laid as quick and as often as possible. But any PUA material that is actually about attracting long term relationships (such as the case with How to Succeed With Women), I will give the benefit of the doubt.

 

Roosh's book, Bang, introduced deep philosophical questions into PUA.  I (might) be able to pick up a digital copy that I can give to you, if you're interested. 

 

Because Roosh's book is so philosophical (and matches a lot of what Stefan also believes), I see no contradiction between PUA and Stefan's messages. 

[J. D. Stembal]

No, evidence has come out and it points towards it being harmful to your long term marriage.  So it is harmful.

 

 

As far as I'm aware, the number of pre-marriage sexual partners is only relevant for the female. The data say nothing about men at this time.

 

 

The only clearest gripe I have with the PUA stuff is the material that is too focussed on simply getting laid as quick and as often as possible. But any PUA material that is actually about attracting long term relationships (such as the case with How to Succeed With Women), I will give the benefit of the doubt.

 

According to evolutionary biology, simply getting laid is all the male really cares about. It's up to the female to restrict his access if need be. The only reason pick-up artistry works is because women have lost the ability or desire to withhold sex except from the most suitable mate. Men are not the gatekeepers of sex, and therefore, are not responsible to women, just themselves. Women are ultimately responsible for defining human sexual relationships, according to Briffault's Law.

 

I used to live with a single mother, and she once told me how much she wanted another child. I asked her with whom she would have the child, and she replied, "Oh, it doesn't matter, I'll find somebody." Ugh...

[MysterionMuffles]

Roosh's book, Bang, introduced deep philosophical questions into PUA.  I (might) be able to pick up a digital copy that I can give to you, if you're interested. 

 

Because Roosh's book is so philosophical (and matches a lot of what Stefan also believes), I see no contradiction between PUA and Stefan's messages. 

 

No thanks. I already have a lot of books on my reading que. 

 

 

A funny thought crossed my mind...

 

Define: Benefits.

 

We are talking about sex specifically as a benefit.

 

But theoretically, joke telling, intimacy, honesty, intelligence, someone to go rock climbing with, someone who loves the same things you do, these could all be considered benefits as well.  In my head I kind of wonder... maybe sex with friends is depriving us of these other benefits.  And if this person has all these other benefits why not just date them exclusively?  And if they don't have other benefits you find irresistible..to what extent is having sex with them taking away time hunting down someone you love.

 

I've personally never been able to separate sex from bonding with anyone I cared at all about.  So it always seemed the only option to me was one night stands with people I didn't particularly like, sex with friends which ended up becoming romantically interested, or sex within a committed relationship.  The problem for me has always been sex with people I don't particularly care about isn't any fun.  And sex with people who I'm friends with or like...well we either don't get the time to get to know eachother which makes the bonding feel weird, or we spoil a relationship by having sex before knowing eachother.  I never found a way to suggest friends with benefits was a good idea.  Especially as I'm getting older and wanting kids...it just seems like a big waste of time in a more significant way than other wastes of time, since your heart gets muddled and takes a while to repair.

 

That's what I'm sayin'! If you don't like the person, you're training your body to get attached to them. If you do like the person, why not go exclusive before they go off with someone else? Even if you're not a jealous person, you can still end up feeling some jealousy because biologically, your body understands them as a pair bonding possibility.

 

This might be weird, but, I don't have anything against casual sex with strangers. Obviously you do need to understand the risks of STD's and unwanted pregnancy, but I mean at an emotional health standpoint, those attachment hormones can wear off. But if you're having consistent sex with somebody, you're developing a bond whether you like it or not, so this is why I personally think having friends with benefits is unhealthy. The line of thinking is, "I like them, I like having sex with them, but I don't want to be with them." Yet you still hang out with this person like any other friend with addition of sex to it. That contradicts what your body is desiring from them = a pair bonding connection.

[Matt D]

What follows is the best argument in favor of sexual promiscuity that I've heard. I don't agree with it, but would someone else like to try rebutting the argument?

 

 

"Sexual Love and Promiscuity

 

If at the lowest level on the ladder of love eros is expressed in our sexual life as a desire for the intense physical pleasure that reconciles us, if only for a time, to embodied life, than we can easily understand why move up to the next step on the ladder. We recognize the physical beauty of—and come to seek sexual pleasure—with many people. We become detached from the beautiful body of one person when we see him or her as just one of many people whose appearance—whose faces and bodies and manner—stimulate our desires. We thus become sexually promiscuous.

 

It is at this point that a key step up the ladder of love is made, that is, the movement from the pursuit of beauty of body to that of beauty of soul. This is a moment in the Symposium that is always overlooked. One suspects that readers of this work—and not just readers in the past—have been too ready to praise the pleasures of the soul and too quick to denigrate the pleasures of the body. And so they don’t see that there is a serious question to be resolved here. Even if we accept the Socratic perspective and take the pleasures of the soul to be higher, finer, and better than the pleasures of the body—and we shall see that this claim is far more problematic than Socrates suggests—we still have the difficulty of understanding why someone in pursuit of the pleasures of the body with multiple partners would, all of a sudden, grasp the importance of the soul. That transformation is by no means easy or natural. Indeed, in the Republic, a similar transformation is said to require the most intense training over a number of years. How can we account, then, for this important moment in the Symposium?

 

Let me suggest, however, that Socrates’ argument takes the pursuit of sexual pleasure seriously. As such, it recognizes that sex can be better or worse. And while beautiful bodies do elicit sexual desire, sex with beautiful bodies is not always the best sex. Sex with someone who has a beautiful soul is like to be more pleasurable. This is true even, perhaps especially, if we think of sex as primarily bodily in nature. A person with a good and beautiful soul is likely to be more open to our desires and his or her own, more capable of discovering new and different ways of giving and receiving pleasure, and more interested in pleasing us than a person with an bad and ugly soul. But that is not the whole story by any means. Sex is, as the speech of Aristophanes teaches us, not only or even primarily a means of gaining physical pleasure but also a means of creating, expressing, and sustaining a relationship between two people. The pursuit of 8 Many people seek the same end, I believe, in the use of alcohol and recreational drugs. And some people—and especially those who find it more difficult to free themselves from soulful anxieties—use drugs as a way of making sexual pleasure possible. This is understandable but ultimately self-defeating. If you don’t need alcohol or drugs to free yourself from anxiety or sexual inhibitions, sexual pleasure is more intense in their absence. 10 sexual pleasure for its own sake can make us aware that good sex can create a strong and attractive tie to another person. And thus it is an easy step to recognize that making such connections can be unpleasant or even dispiriting when we have sex with someone with a bad and ugly soul.

 

Or, to put the point another way, it is easier to lose ourselves intertwined in the arms and legs of a sexual partner with a good soul. And when we come back to ourselves, it is much more appealing to find ourselves with such a person as well.

 

My suggestion then is that the pursuit of sexual pleasure in sexual promiscuity is a critical way in which learn the importance of the soul, because it teaches us how important the souls of our sexual partners are to the satisfaction of our own bodily desires and reveals to us that pleasures of a more than sexual connection to another person. As we pursue sexual pleasure, and recognize the importance of the soul, we come to understand that sex can have a purpose beyond bodily pleasure, precisely to bring two souls together as one.

 

Thus it is precisely in the pursuit of bodily pleasure that we come to recognize the importance of a good soul. And, if we can recognize it, then the object of our erotic pursuits is transformed. We come to treasure beauty of soul rather than beauty of body."

 

Source: http://www.stier.net/writing/Is_Socrates_a_Model.pdf

[MMX2010]

 

My suggestion then is that the pursuit of sexual pleasure in sexual promiscuity is a critical way in which learn the importance of the soul, because it teaches us how important the souls of our sexual partners are to the satisfaction of our own bodily desires and reveals to us that pleasures of a more than sexual connection to another person. As we pursue sexual pleasure, and recognize the importance of the soul, we come to understand that sex can have a purpose beyond bodily pleasure, precisely to bring two souls together as one.

 

I agree with this argument, but with one important caveat. 

 

When the argument is used to describe a man, it's usually correct.  But when the argument is used to describe a woman, it's almost always wrong. 

 

Women experience their peak Sexual Market Values at age 23, and so their sexual promiscuity is experienced in the mind of an immature young adult.  But men experience their peak Sexual Market Values at age 36, and so their sexual promiscuity is experienced in the mind of a mature adult. 

 

Since the primary goal of any society is preventing men from realizing their peak Sexual Market Value, (because a man who realizes that he'll become awesome at age 36 is much less likely to support a same-aged woman over a lifetime), the "importance of soul argument" is merely designed to make older men seek out the affections of same-aged women.  Smarter men, however, know the ruse and reject the argument. 

[Eh Steve]

This is just my opinion

 

The theory proposed seems to be that we can find the value of a persons character by measuring our sexual enjoyment with them.  And understanding that pleasure and character are intertwined.

 

In practice there is nothing particularly wrong or immoral with this theory.  The question to me becomes...are we only measuring sexual enjoyment?  Because this is where the theory seems to fail.  A lot of people report having their best sex with crazy women.  So the lesson here doesn't seem to be applying unless you happen to meet the right person to make this assessment.  And are the right people going to sleep with you to help you make this judgement when biologically good women are not likely to be taking this route.  

 

The question to me becomes... can we find bodily pleasure to give us this information outside of sexual interactions?

 

I would argue yes.

 

You can find bodily pleasure without having sex with someone and it will give you the same indications of the persons character proposed here, without the issues of the endorphins of sex muddling your opinions, risks of STDs, risks of pregnancy etc. etc.

 

Having conversations with people I find brings about a state similar on which I can judge whether or not the sex would be good with them.  Certain people I feel tense around, or I feel they are withholding or dishonest or dangerous, other people I feel relaxed around, jovial, honest and well connected.  I can use these biological markers / feelings of comfort/joy/happiness to choose who I have sex with.  I don't need to have sex with someone to figure these things out.

 

 I think this individual has the idea backwards from my personal experience.  And frankly the notion doesn't really match up biologically...a lot of this stuff comes out because we now have reliable birth control, without that this theory would be dead in the water.  And I think a lot of the stress around sex comes because birth control never completely satisfies the anxieties we feel from sexual activities with the wrong/untrustworthy/non-loved person.  (at least my experience here). 

 

I would argue there is a lot right with this theory.  But I would argue rather than sexual acts which come with giant risks you can get the same principle and benefits from conversations and spending time together in a non sexual way.  

 

Thoughts?

[MMX2010]

Having conversations with people I find brings about a state similar on which I can judge whether or not the sex would be good with them.  Certain people I feel tense around, or I feel they are withholding or dishonest or dangerous, other people I feel relaxed around, jovial, honest and well connected.  I can use these biological markers / feelings of comfort/joy/happiness to choose who I have sex with.  I don't need to have sex with someone to figure these things out.

 

 I think this individual has the idea backwards from my personal experience.  And frankly the notion doesn't really match up biologically...a lot of this stuff comes out because we now have reliable birth control, without that this theory would be dead in the water.  And I think a lot of the stress around sex comes because birth control never completely satisfies the anxieties we feel from sexual activities with the wrong/untrustworthy/non-loved person.  (at least my experience here). 

 

I would argue there is a lot right with this theory.  But I would argue rather than sexual acts which come with giant risks you can get the same principle and benefits from conversations and spending time together in a non sexual way.  

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I would argue that we're a sexually reproducing species, so any argument which begins, "I don't have sex, but...." or "You don't need to have sex to...." is automatically docked 100 goals.  (It's like spotting the opposing team 100 goals, but trying to win the game anyway.) 

 

I also think that saying, "I know, just by conversing with them, whether the sex will be enjoyable." is much more likely to be a buffer against rejection than an actual insight into the nature and character of the other.  A simple explanation, for example, would be, "I hit on her; she rejected me." - instead of the more complex explanation, "By virtue of our conversations, I deduced that sexual intercourse with her would be unpleasant because of her tenseness...." 

 

Not saying you're wrong; just saying I'm skeptical. 

[MysterionMuffles]

Or, to put the point another way, it is easier to lose ourselves intertwined in the arms and legs of a sexual partner with a good soul. And when we come back to ourselves, it is much more appealing to find ourselves with such a person as well.

 

Well put! Interesting article thanks for the share. I'm not sure about the use of the word soul, but if it is in reference to emotional fulfillment, then that's a good case to make. That there is more to sex than the physical sensation, and much like it has said, sex with beautiful people isn't always the best. Sometimes it's the worst because they feel entitled to make it all about them and make you do all the work. Fortunately the beautiful women I've been with haven't been so vain to expect that I do all the performing, they gave back, but let's not got into that here.

 

But despite of their beauty and reciprocation, sometimes, that "kindred spirit" feeling wasn't there, and has left me feeling like "this SHOULD make me happy, and I am physically, but something's missing..."

 

Which could be why I personally can't do the casual sex thing. I feel like I'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to reason myself out of the feelings of attachment, but would be much easier if they were lesser of quality partners. And since lesser quality people are usually the ones that sleep around blindly, and I don't believe in sex with people you can't enjoy the company of, I would much rather stay from it altogether. I've had my flings, but I'm a grown man now, and there's no more time to mess around. I need me some wifey material

 

 

This is just my opinion

 

The theory proposed seems to be that we can find the value of a persons character by measuring our sexual enjoyment with them.  And understanding that pleasure and character are intertwined.

 

In practice there is nothing particularly wrong or immoral with this theory.  The question to me becomes...are we only measuring sexual enjoyment?  Because this is where the theory seems to fail.  A lot of people report having their best sex with crazy women.  So the lesson here doesn't seem to be applying unless you happen to meet the right person to make this assessment.  And are the right people going to sleep with you to help you make this judgement when biologically good women are not likely to be taking this route.  

 

The question to me becomes... can we find bodily pleasure to give us this information outside of sexual interactions?

 

I would argue yes.

 

You can find bodily pleasure without having sex with someone and it will give you the same indications of the persons character proposed here, without the issues of the endorphins of sex muddling your opinions, risks of STDs, risks of pregnancy etc. etc.

 

Having conversations with people I find brings about a state similar on which I can judge whether or not the sex would be good with them.  Certain people I feel tense around, or I feel they are withholding or dishonest or dangerous, other people I feel relaxed around, jovial, honest and well connected.  I can use these biological markers / feelings of comfort/joy/happiness to choose who I have sex with.  I don't need to have sex with someone to figure these things out.

 

 I think this individual has the idea backwards from my personal experience.  And frankly the notion doesn't really match up biologically...a lot of this stuff comes out because we now have reliable birth control, without that this theory would be dead in the water.  And I think a lot of the stress around sex comes because birth control never completely satisfies the anxieties we feel from sexual activities with the wrong/untrustworthy/non-loved person.  (at least my experience here). 

 

I would argue there is a lot right with this theory.  But I would argue rather than sexual acts which come with giant risks you can get the same principle and benefits from conversations and spending time together in a non sexual way.  

 

Thoughts?

 

Hmm you bring up a good point, Steve. I definitely think you can achieve and feel that emotional, intimate, and romantic connection through just conversation. It's just a separate dimension you're not choosing to intermingle with the other (sex). I wouldn't say it's incomplete this way, though. It's kind of like having work friends you enjoy the company of AT work, but do not pursue a personal friendship outside of it. Sex and deep conversations are just two different dimensions you simply have the choice to meld together or not.

 

I think the more intellectual and emotional the connection you have with someone, the better the sex would be because it feels a lot less like a transaction, and more of an intimate act where you train your hormones to pair bond with each other. This is why this whole "sex on the first date" culture is actually destructive to love. If sex is the highest value in an intimate relationship and it is given up way too early in the relationship, and you later find that you can barely stand your partner after having copious amounts of sex with them, then it makes the sex disingenuine. Too many dysfunctional relationships rely on sex to just keep things going, and that's all there is, then we are no better than the cavemen we evolved from.

 

We are a species meant to evolve at the level of the mind and body. We need more than just physical sensations to be attracted to people, we also need that emotional and intellectual stimulation if we are to stand any chance to evolve as people in an ever evolving planet. People who have reckless sex with each other and have unwanted children they can't afford is akin to primal cavemen trying to get by in our advanced society. 

 

And I'm not saying this to denegrate anyone who has casual sex or commit infidelity or even adultery. It's understandable that their lizard brains see a sexual opportunity and they take it, but I mean if we as philosophers want to improve the state of the world, we'd stick to promoting the K type of reproduction and that requires an intimate level of trust between two people evolved in mind, body, and heart.

[AncapFTW]

This is just my opinion

 

The theory proposed seems to be that we can find the value of a persons character by measuring our sexual enjoyment with them.  And understanding that pleasure and character are intertwined.

 

In practice there is nothing particularly wrong or immoral with this theory.  The question to me becomes...are we only measuring sexual enjoyment?  Because this is where the theory seems to fail.  A lot of people report having their best sex with crazy women.  So the lesson here doesn't seem to be applying unless you happen to meet the right person to make this assessment.  And are the right people going to sleep with you to help you make this judgement when biologically good women are not likely to be taking this route.  

 

The question to me becomes... can we find bodily pleasure to give us this information outside of sexual interactions?

 

I would argue yes.

 

You can find bodily pleasure without having sex with someone and it will give you the same indications of the persons character proposed here, without the issues of the endorphins of sex muddling your opinions, risks of STDs, risks of pregnancy etc. etc.

 

Having conversations with people I find brings about a state similar on which I can judge whether or not the sex would be good with them.  Certain people I feel tense around, or I feel they are withholding or dishonest or dangerous, other people I feel relaxed around, jovial, honest and well connected.  I can use these biological markers / feelings of comfort/joy/happiness to choose who I have sex with.  I don't need to have sex with someone to figure these things out.

 

 I think this individual has the idea backwards from my personal experience.  And frankly the notion doesn't really match up biologically...a lot of this stuff comes out because we now have reliable birth control, without that this theory would be dead in the water.  And I think a lot of the stress around sex comes because birth control never completely satisfies the anxieties we feel from sexual activities with the wrong/untrustworthy/non-loved person.  (at least my experience here). 

 

I would argue there is a lot right with this theory.  But I would argue rather than sexual acts which come with giant risks you can get the same principle and benefits from conversations and spending time together in a non sexual way.  

 

Thoughts?

Most people associate clothing with being closed off, and nudity with being open.  This, of course, is from being told it's wrong as a child.

 

Wouldn't that mean that people tend to be more open with people they feel they can get naked around?

[Eh Steve]

Most people associate clothing with being closed off, and nudity with being open.  This, of course, is from being told it's wrong as a child.

 

Wouldn't that mean that people tend to be more open with people they feel they can get naked around?

 

Could be the case.  In other cases I'm aware of people put on a dishonest persona to get people into bed (whether male or female).

 

Weirdly I was thinking about this topic today and I really stand behind the idea I proposed.  I wasn't aware when writing it but I figured out that I know several relationships which have broken up or are on the rocks with my friends were forged with the premise MattD posted (not that he agrees with it.

 

I know many many relationships, all of which have a similar pattern, were forged exclusively on "I had the best sex with this person".  It kind of blew my mind when I realized this, but literally many people I've known over the years have told me this exact statement.  I don't know a lot of people in happy functional relationships right now, so I can't really comment with a huge sample size here.  But every relationship I've ever seen that was formed on the basis of enjoyable sex has lead to the inevitable decline in infatuation and then the dearth/lack of relationship skills end up crushing the relationship in the long run.

 

I think sex is kind of a ...lets say caveman... approach to relationships.  We can go into K vs. R reproductive strategies etc.. for that.  But if the basis of your relationship is how good the sex is.... Sex eventually has a novelty factor for most people.  So you are going to break up if your standard of who you will be with is based on the quality of the sex.  Much like choosing a woman for her looks, there is a ticking clock going on here.

 

It just kind of stunned me how I realized I have, basically everyone I've ever talked to about their relationships at any depth, the theory MattD posted is friggen how everyone I've ever talked to described their relationship.  It was always about the person they had the best relationship with.  They all eventually became less infatuated.  They all had very little to no communication skills and eventually collapsed.

 

I don't mean to badger the point I'm just excited  I think confidence in relationship comes from knowing relationship maintaining skills and getting together with someone else who does too.  Along with that you tap into your emotions...theoretically someone who knows how to maintain relationships should be pretty pleasant to be aroudn emotionally in the first place, but yeah you can peg your emotional enjoyment of the person as well... But dammmmn have I seen the other theory fail repetitively now that I think about it.

[kathryn]

It seems like the friends with benefits scenario is just letting go of so many personal standards, and I think being entangled in a relationship like that would prevent you from finding the truly virtuous person you want to be with.

 

For myself, I know I am far too emotional to engage in causal sex. I have a hard enough time as it is maintaining boundaries with people. In my experience, if I sleep with someone, they will never leave me alone. 

Oxytocin is the bonding chemical. Those hormonal releases during sex create attachment, especially for women, and that can get very confusing when there is no real merit for that attachment.