Sex Ed Thread Six (Sex, Gender, and Relationship Q&A)

[pirrou]

Whoa, all of those things aren't intended as anything. Relationships (romantic or otherwise) are unique and defined by the people within them, not package deals where you're supposed to do all the Official Coupley Things™.

[Graknorke]

But most people who like libraries like libraries because of the books there. Even if they don't read a book, they go there because they are always able to pick a book off a shelf and read it. The primary draw of a library is that it has books.
Also that it's quiet, but that's mostly for grumpy old folks.

EDIT: This is why I don't get on with people particularly well. I consider cultural establishment too much, and also don't consider most individuals important, seeing as there's generally so many things that go on that the actions of one are irrelevant. I guess. Also I don't like people, but that would be obvious.

Plus, romantic relationships are pointless and why do they exist outside of a sexual context I don't get it why can't people all be more like me so I understand better

[AdurnaFricai]

If my incredibly uninformed feelings are welcome here, I would like to say what my view on the thing is.
The largest thing for me, is how do you even tell between romantic and friendly without at least the intention of bumping the uglies? Otherwise, it's just a friend who you're particularly open with, and who gets expensive presents often. Without sexual feelings being involved, would romantic attraction not just be "This guy/gal is pretty cool I guess. We should hang out more."?

Well, what is that separates "that person is hot" from "I love this person"? It's the same difference for us between friendship and love.

Whoa, all of those things aren't intended as anything. Relationships (romantic or otherwise) are unique and defined by the people within them, not package deals where you're supposed to do all the Official Coupley Things™.

I love it when I'm not around and someone else posts what I would have.

But most people who like libraries like libraries because of the books there. Even if they don't read a book, they go there because they are always able to pick a book off a shelf and read it. The primary draw of a library is that it has books.
Also that it's quiet, but that's mostly for grumpy old folks.

EDIT: This is why I don't get on with people particularly well. I consider cultural establishment too much, and also don't consider most individuals important, seeing as there's generally so many things that go on that the actions of one are irrelevant. I guess. Also I don't like people, but that would be obvious.

Plus, romantic relationships are pointless and why do they exist outside of a sexual context I don't get it why can't people all be more like me so I understand better

The 'why do romantic relationships exist' thing makes perfect sense. There is no logical reason, and it serves no clear purpose.
Thing is, why does enjoyment exist?

[Graknorke]

I don't really get love either. With the exception of the "love" people feel to protect their genetic lineage. Where do YOU draw the line between thinking "I want to be friends with this person" and "I love this person"? Without the inclusion of sex, I don't really see where you draw the line. Or how you could even clearly define the difference.
Thinking about this has made me wonder if this is what it's like being colourblind. Yes, I see you pointing me to the two different things, but they look the same to me. Indistinguishable, at the least.

[ArmsAreLoud]

Your first problem was thinking that the mind works in a rational manner.

Neither ideas really make any logical sense but they are still things that exist. You'll never be able to understand them unless you experience them firsthand.

[AdurnaFricai]

I thought I explained the difference pretty well. We heard from Hatman that sexual people can feel completely differently about certain people from how they feel about people who they just want to have sex with. That same distinction exists for those with nonequal sexual and romantic attractions, between friends and subjects of romantic attraction.
I've also been feeling that feeling of just not understanding other people, but in the other way. How could your love be so defined by something like sex?

[deathsbuddy]

Yo that's sounding awfully judgemental.

I understand you're just trying to figure out what the haps are but there's no need to make people that aren't like yourself sound like complete monsters.

No offense to monsters.

[Graknorke]

You'll never be able to understand them unless you experience them firsthand.

People always say this. And I always have to call bullshit. It's not understanding you're talking about when you say "understand". What you mean is "recall memories of". It's the same way people say you can't "understand" what it's like to be in a war situation. Yes, I understand, it's violent and scary and mentally scarring. What they want to say is that I have no experience in it. Which is indeed true.
The point is, understanding doesn't require experience. It only really requires description and imagination. The thing is; people never really explain what they mean by "love", they just usually spout some shit about butterflies and rainbows and whatever.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure sentimental huggy things aren't my thing. I just... never feel an urge to act like that. The only time I ever behaved like that was one of those "OMG, U 2 shud go out lol", and I had to do my best to pretend like I cared, but I don't think I did very well. I don't think it's really the sort of thing that you can pretend to care about.

TL;DR: I will never get it, but that won't stop me from pestering people to explain it.

EDIT:

How could your love be so defined by something like sex?

I never said that. I never used the word love at all because I believe it to be a load of nonsense spewed by popular culture because self-reinforcing shit and whatever. I was asking how you differentiate RELATIONSHIPS using only some vague wishy-washy abstraction.

[Ace of Dark-Hearts]

Oh boy, someone's opinionated.

You don't have to understand it. They're just feelings. I'm not even sure of my feelings. I basically have zero experience.

The Library metaphor isn't a very good one. You're basically saying that nothing happens except expending energy until sex. Some people just enjoy the drive to the library more than others; some want to hurry up and check out a book and leave. It's just different preferences.

Regarding the "building up to sex" thing: I have no problem with sex. Sex is great. It's the part of my brain that defines sexy in a woman that seems to be absent. I also don't think I buy that all romantic aspects in a relationship are solely building towards sex, although that is probably a major component. That's a broad generalization.

[Bandages]

Love is real, and often stands apart from culture.

Thinking sex and romance are inseparable is not a good way to think about it. You can love someone a great deal and never want to have sex with them, and there are people you'd have sex with routinely without ever living them.

I sense bitter grapes, but I tend to read the worst in people who present themselves as... Ehhh... Superior?

[Graknorke]

Of course I'm opinionated. Somebody without opinions isn't much of a somebody at all. Just about everything a person does is based around how they feel about things.
And I never said I had to understand it, but I have been told that I should give up on my viewpoints if I can't understand it. I am very stubborn, and so I have set out to get a better understanding. The best way to do that is asking other people, but it seems that whenever people get to explaining it, they stop being able to. Supporting my belief that it is not even a thing besides people convincing themselves it's a thing.

Regarding the other thing, if people prefer social interaction better, then I return to my previous point, where do you draw the line between a good friend and a romantic partner?

Note: If it makes you feel any better, this isn't personal towards any of you. I'm in a horrendous mood today due to various ailments and arguments are like some sort of horribly addictive substance when I'm like this. It's rather late, so I came to the internet to vent my general anger and frustrations in the form of an issue that's also been bugging me.

EDIT: Again, the only time I've ever been able to empathise with any sort of "love" is the sort that compels you to protect your personal genes, including family members, seeing as you'll have a lot in common with close family.
EDIT-BECAUSE-I-SAVED-THE-LAST-ONE-WITHOUT-FINISHING: What do you mean by "sour grapes"?

[deathsbuddy]

i kind of feel like romance's evolutionary "purpose" (as bullshit as that is) has to do with the morning after.

more specifically, there was a point where it was much more likely for a kid to reach reproductive age with at least two parents. so i wouldn't say romance is "building up to sex".

this is idle speculation on my part, sure.

[BewareOfNerd]

i kind of feel like romance's evolutionary "purpose" (as bullshit as that is) has to do with the morning after.

more specifically, there was a point where it was much more likely for a kid to reach reproductive age with at least two parents. so i wouldn't say romance is "building up to sex".

this is idle speculation on my part, sure.

Yes, exactly. I was trying to think of a good explanation for the evolutionary reasoning behind this. Here goes:

Sex produces babies. Babies are necessary for the continued existence of the species, so most people are programmed to like and want sex. However, babies are hard for one person to care and provide for, so romantic love exists to make sure one person will want to stay with another person (often but not always their sexual partner) and help them raise their children.

[Ace of Dark-Hearts]

Love is real, and often stands apart from culture.

Thinking sex and romance are inseparable is not a good way to think about it. You can love someone a great deal and never want to have sex with them, and there are people you'd have sex with routinely without ever living them.

I sense bitter grapes, but I tend to read the worst in people who present themselves as... Ehhh... Superior?

I think that is just a thing that tends to happen on the internet when people get agitated. The internet would be much easier if you could translate your tone of voice into letters.

Of course I'm opinionated. Somebody without opinions isn't much of a somebody at all. Just about everything a person does is based around how they feel about things.
And I never said I had to understand it, but I have been told that I should give up on my viewpoints if I can't understand it. I am very stubborn, and so I have set out to get a better understanding. The best way to do that is asking other people, but it seems that whenever people get to explaining it, they stop being able to. Supporting my belief that it is not even a thing besides people convincing themselves it's a thing.

Regarding the other thing, if people prefer social interaction better, then I return to my previous point, where do you draw the line between a good friend and a romantic partner?

Note: If it makes you feel any better, this isn't personal towards any of you. I'm in a horrendous mood today due to various ailments and arguments are like some sort of horribly addictive substance when I'm like this. It's rather late, so I came to the internet to vent my general anger and frustrations in the form of an issue that's also been bugging me.

EDIT: Again, the only time I've ever been able to empathise with any sort of "love" is the sort that compels you to protect your personal genes, including family members, seeing as you'll have a lot in common with close family.
EDIT-BECAUSE-I-SAVED-THE-LAST-ONE-WITHOUT-FINISHING: What do you mean by "sour grapes"?

Hey, no worries, friend. It's okay to be skeptical and stubborn, just try not to be aggressive and act superior

I'd say a good place to draw the line between friends and partners would be kissing, physical contact (cuddling touchy feel-y crap), and just plain being able to have a good time with each other.

I, in fact, dislike most of my family. The concept of familial love to me is more like an obligation and an I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-my-back sort of relationship instead of a relationship that would actually be pleasurable between close people.

[Graknorke]

I'm not even sure if familial love is supposed to be too pleasant.
I'm pretty sure that most action taken as a result of it is done out of fear about the well-being of another, rather than out of positive things. Of course, there are positive bits of family too, but it's largely because you have been hammered into you the knowledge from birth that these peeps are actually quite important and also control food provision.
EDIT: Or that you're happy about not being worried about them.

[deathsbuddy]

Yes, exactly. I was trying to think of a good explanation for the evolutionary reasoning behind this. Here goes:

Sex produces babies. Babies are necessary for the continued existence of the species, so most people are programmed to like and want sex. However, babies are hard for one person to care and provide for, so romantic love exists to make sure one person will want to stay with another person (often but not always their sexual partner) and help them raise their children.

Now, that doesn't mean people in love have to have kids. It would just be how those chemicals came about.

It's important to make that distinction.

[Freack]

Well, I am not genetically related to most of my family and I adore them. Then again, I have mostly fond memories of them, but even when I am not super happy with them I would still kill or die for most of them. You could say it is about protecting your genes, but I get that way for a lot of people.
This is not a karma thing, but my "family instinct" will kick in around anybody. I will hang around a kid who looks abandoned in a store until a parent shows up or something.

The "love" for family is in a totally different category from romantic love, but to say it is based on any negative or positive emotion strikes me as not always applicable. It boils down to a sort of protectiveness. Like, my step-mother for instance. I hate her, she was a total bitch to me and she made my life miserable. But if a person outside of my family says anything bad about her, I will go to her defense, no questions.

Inthink a part of romantic love is kind of taking a person outside of your tribe or Pack or whatever and having them fall under that same family protectiveness bubble. At least, that is what I have seen in long term or even amiacably divorced couples.

[pirrou]

You don't have to understand it. They're just feelings.

This. Everything is so much easier if you leave it at this. You don't vitally need to know why everybody feels the way they do, and even if for some reason you think you do on some issue, badgering people for more detail isn't going to magically pull back the curtain and make you relate, if you don't want to trust anything outside your personal experience.

I'd say a good place to draw the line between friends and partners would be kissing, physical contact (cuddling touchy feel-y crap), and just plain being able to have a good time with each other.

There really, really isn't a good place to draw a line. I enjoy some of the forms of physical affection you just mentioned, but not others. Somebody I tried to have a relationship with, upon me telling him this, scoffed at me and told me what I wanted was impossible, and that apparently that meant I wanted some sort of undefinable grey area that clearly no human being other than me would ever be able to make sense of. Which I doubt, and I also strongly suspect he had his head three feet up his ass.

[Ace of Dark-Hearts]

This. Everything is so much easier if you leave it at this. You don't vitally need to know why everybody feels the way they do, and even if for some reason you think you do on some issue, badgering people for more detail isn't going to magically pull back the curtain and make you relate, if you don't want to trust anything outside your personal experience.

There really, really isn't a good place to draw a line. I enjoy some of the forms of physical affection you just mentioned, but not others. Somebody I tried to have a relationship with, upon me telling him this, scoffed at me and told me what I wanted was impossible, and that apparently that meant I wanted some sort of undefinable grey area that clearly no human being other than me would ever be able to make sense of. Which I doubt, and I also strongly suspect he had his head three feet up his ass.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here in that last paragraph.

You're telling me that my reasons aren't good, and then you're giving me a seemingly unrelated anecdote.

Where would you "draw the line?"

[pirrou]

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here in that last paragraph.

You're telling me that my reasons aren't good, and then you're giving me a seemingly unrelated anecdote.

Where would you "draw the line?"

It was related, I was giving an example of why it's difficult to divide based on specific activities or behaviors. Not always a package deal, like I said earlier.

Where would I draw the line? I wouldn't for other people's relationships, or hypothetical relationships I'm not involved in. As in, the guy in said anecdote was perfectly justified that he couldn't maintain a relationship with somebody whose methods of showing affection were so different from his as to be incongruent with his view of what a relationship should be, and couldn't keep romantic feelings out of a friendship with me for the same reason. It was his assumption that anybody I met in the future would have the same standards, that was ridiculous.

[Hatman Hatmyth Hatlegend]

This. Everything is so much easier if you leave it at this. You don't vitally need to know why everybody feels the way they do, and even if for some reason you think you do on some issue, badgering people for more detail isn't going to magically pull back the curtain and make you relate, if you don't want to trust anything outside your personal experience.

It's like me saying "ALL MEN ARE BI AT LEAST BECAUSE ONE WHO CLAIMS HE'S STRAIGHT GRABBED MY DICK SEXILY IN A FAILED THREESOME."

Not only it's not true, it's pretty damn insulting.

At the very least, keep an open mind, don't be confrontational, speak of your own experiences and try to build something.

[Sir Pinkleton]

Firstly, while I disagree with how they are defended, I want to encourage you, Graknorke, to keep up the metaphors. They're difficult to use, because its most basic, you're trying to compare two unlike things, which isn't a good position to be in, but they help me personally understand things/people better.
Now onto an actual topic. I'd like to put out there that plenty of couples say their significant other is their best friend. One theory on Marriage that's related claimed that the reason marriages are intrinsically valuable are because they are a publicly announced and legally defined friendships. If the married couple aren't friends, then it's only really instrumentally valuable, such as some arranged marriages, or people getting married strictly for citizenship. So I'd argue that friendship and romantic attraction are two very closely related things. You don't need romantic attraction to be friends, but I think you have to be friends to have a romantic relationship.

I think this because I believe friends are those you trust and respect, and who you want to be around for their own sake (not just because they have a pool, etc.). There are other reasons but I can't remember them all right now. These traits I would want in both a friendship and a romantic relationship, but a romantic relationship is qualitatively more of those and other things. If there was a house fire, and one needed to choose between a friend and a romantic lover, society wouldn't blame someone for going to help their romantic lover first. This is because of this qualitative difference, or so I claim.

And I'd just like to put some support behind the idea that yeah, maybe love isn't real, at least not the lovey dovey kind you see in the movies and on merchandise before valentines day. I believe there's good reason to consider that love is a product of some specific needs of society. Whether recognizing that need change how we love someone is up to the individual, but I think it's wrong to make a definitive claim such as "love is real." Just because something seems real is not reason enough to agree that it is real.

This all said I personally do believe in love, and would like to meet a woman some day who I could be romantic with.

[Drillgorg]

Today I was explaining to my girlfriend the reasoning behind where wiring closets are located in large buildings (we had walked by an open wiring closet and were duly impressed by the profusion of wires within.) The crux of the matter is that in Cat 5 cable the signal attenuates after 100 meters of cabling, so in order to have ethernet spread throughout the building each room in need of an internet connection has to be within a 100 meter cable run of the nearest wiring closet. Anyway she was turned on by my use of the word attenuate and general knowledge of networking infrastructure.

That is love.

[knottedOdyssey]

Drillgorg, your girlfriend sounds awesome.

[nostalgebraist]

Anyway she was turned on by my use of the word attenuate and general knowledge of networking infrastructure.

This is the best sentence I've read all day.