Maral Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 (edited) I didn't have any sex in the 50's ... and now, it's going to be even less? poor Sip! Edited August 7, 2004 by Maral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 This is probably going to be one of my most naive questions/comments on Hyeforum, if not the most absurd... But what do you think... uhum... is it a good thing or just plain pathetic if one hasn't experienced sex by 21 years of age and is dutifully looking for the "right" person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 This is probably going to be one of my most naive questions/comments on Hyeforum, if not the most absurd... But what do you think... uhum... is it a good thing or just plain pathetic if one hasn't experienced sex by 21 years of age and is dutifully looking for the "right" person? Not a good thing, not pathetic, and you have to do what is right for you. But I'd still say keep working at it and find a "solution" ASAP. After all, it is a learning process and the sooner you start the better. Women hit peak at late 20's to early 30's, but how do you know you still won't be getting crap and not knowing how to tell the difference by then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Yes, but aren't we told that the right "solution" will always be finding one true mate for the rest of your life? I know I sound incredibly naive but at least for me the guy has to be Armenian, and I'm sure you know the problems associated with dating Armenian guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Yes, but aren't we told that the right "solution" will always be finding one true mate for the rest of your life? I know I sound incredibly naive but at least for me the guy has to be Armenian, and I'm sure you know the problems associated with dating Armenian guys Two things: Are you going to marry the first person you hold hands with versus playing the field? And is his being good in the sack important for you? If so, how are you gonna know/be able to tell/compare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakachik77 Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Yes, but aren't we told that the right "solution" will always be finding one true mate for the rest of your life? I know I sound incredibly naive but at least for me the guy has to be Armenian, and I'm sure you know the problems associated with dating Armenian guys Do what you find is right for you, every person is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 And is his being good in the sack important for you? If so, how are you gonna know/be able to tell/compare? I guess it's too naive to assume that everybody's supposed to be good in the sack, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 I guess it's too naive to assume that everybody's supposed to be good in the sack, huh? Oh yes. Now that is way naive. Don't be fooled by talk, either - there are losers who say they want to try this or that with you and then end up being not even able to touch. Gotta test-drive yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 Two things: Are you going to marry the first person you hold hands with versus playing the field? And is his being good in the sack important for you? If so, how are you gonna know/be able to tell/compare? I would add a third one: There is always a 99.99% statistical plausibily that there is someone out there who in comparison with your currnt partner is better in almost every sense. How do you deal with this situation? Go on with the search or stop it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 I would add a third one: There is always a 99.99% statistical plausibily that there is someone out there who in comparison with your currnt partner is better in almost every sense. How do you deal with this situation? Go on with the search or stop it? Don't have all the time in the world, do we? <_< Some people already cut off the chunk of the chase by sticking with Chinese, Hutu, or Eskimo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 I say hit and run. That's my philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 I think we probably had more *time* for sex in the fifties... but then who am I to tell - I wasn't around back then. Maybe we should ask Azat ?!?! :msn-cry: on second thought I think i am not going to be in LA in December Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted August 7, 2004 Report Share Posted August 7, 2004 :msn-cry: on second thought I think i am not going to be in LA in December Awww. I was just joking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Gevo and Stormig. Please stay away from each other as if you silly argument continues moderators will be forces to give you both warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 This is probably going to be one of my most naive questions/comments on Hyeforum, if not the most absurd... But what do you think... uhum... is it a good thing or just plain pathetic if one hasn't experienced sex by 21 years of age and is dutifully looking for the "right" person? I think it is a great thing, but this is my personal opinion. Nobody can answer this question with the "right answer" because this is a matter of personal choice and only the person in question can have the right answer. I think that there is something very wrong with asking this question, and I don't at all mean to project my ideas upon anyone. It comes from deceptions of the western culture. Western culture is telling people that they are inadequate if they don't have a sex life. I consider this idea a big insult to the human nature, and the "philosophy" behind it bogus. Sex urge is purely an animal urge, nevertheless even animals are not considered inadequate if they don't have sex. So how can a thinking, reasoning, feeling and self-conscious human be inadequate without sex??? To keep it short, if one is waiting for the right person and not giving in to sex urges it only speaks of their better and purer qualities. Everyone can indulge in sex beginning from 14 years old, there is nothing praiseworthy about it. Happiness and satisfaction in the right partner has very little to do with sex life. The proof to that should be such a huge number of sexually active unsatisfied unmarried or married couples in the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Yeah, I agree Sasun. I guess I asked my question because the Western culture/media is telling people that everyone's having sex and people are inadequate if they aren't having sex. But on the other hand, belonging to the Armenian culture, we are raised with the idea that we should wait as long as possible to have sex, and the best would be to wait until marriage. And living in LA, where the Armenian guys are the most narrow-minded people, one has to be careful not to develop any reputation of being "pchatsats". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 (edited) And living in LA, where the Armenian guys are the most narrow-minded people, one has to be careful not to develop any reputation of being "pchatsats". I have not been to LA, by most similar accounts it sounds like a village. I think Yerevan has less of that "bambasank" stuff. Edited August 9, 2004 by Sasun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 I don't think that Western culture emphasises sex at an exaggerated level. It allows for personal liberties so that one chooses what they want. This opposed to what Western culture was like just a century ago - pretty repressive, at least on the surface, about where "traditional" cultures are today. On the other hand, in the East, you have the Kama Sutra - the concept of Tantra and Tantric sex is also a product of the East. These practices were perhaps limited to an elite and the general population was still "traditional," but this is where the world is headed today - everyone has right and access to everything. I still think that thinking quality sex can be dismissed is naive. It's like thinking quality time with your family, enjoyment, is unnecessary. Everyone needs to play, not just animals; all work is no good. Neither is all abstinence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 I don't think that Western culture emphasises sex at an exaggerated level. It allows for personal liberties so that one chooses what they want. Not all of western culture but mass media, film industry, music industry and what maybe considered popular culture surely looks at sex life as something indispensible and necessary to be considered a normal member of society. Not to mention that all industries appeal to this sexual society for profits, e.g. a car is advertised with a sexy man or woman in the ad. Sex has nothing to do with the car, but they would like to deceive us by using such technic.s We are simply left without choice if we are exposed to the pop culture, the other alternative is to live an isolated life to avoid such influence which is not practical. So we don't really have much freedom of choice. I still think that thinking quality sex can be dismissed is naive. It's like thinking quality time with your family, enjoyment, is unnecessary. Everyone needs to play, not just animals; all work is no good. Neither is all abstinence. One can be quite happy and healthy in moderation and self-restraint, even happier without no sex at all. In my understanding there is no such thing as quality sex, in sex there is no complete satisfaction, something is always lacking and leaving you to desire for unattainable companionships and qualities. Sex only leads one to more desire, and almost all desires remain unsatisfied which only leads to frustration and all the troubles that come from frustration. Trying and experimenting with the hope of finding desired quality is simply pointless because it can never be achieved. It doesn't really matter how much sex you have, as long as you always want more and are always unsatisfied it is always the same. You are always unhappy. In the 50's people were not any happier with sex life than now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Not all of western culture but mass media, film industry, music industry and what maybe considered popular culture surely looks at sex life as something indispensible and necessary to be considered a normal member of society. Not to mention that all industries appeal to this sexual society for profits, e.g. a car is advertised with a sexy man or woman in the ad. Sex has nothing to do with the car, but they would like to deceive us by using such technic.s We are simply left without choice if we are exposed to the pop culture, the other alternative is to live an isolated life to avoid such influence which is not practical. So we don't really have much freedom of choice. One can be quite happy and healthy in moderation and self-restraint, even happier without no sex at all. In my understanding there is no such thing as quality sex, in sex there is no complete satisfaction, something is always lacking and leaving you to desire for unattainable companionships and qualities. Sex only leads one to more desire, and almost all desires remain unsatisfied which only leads to frustration and all the troubles that come from frustration. Trying and experimenting with the hope of finding desired quality is simply pointless because it can never be achieved. It doesn't really matter how much sex you have, as long as you always want more and are always unsatisfied it is always the same. You are always unhappy. In the 50's people were not any happier with sex life than now. I don't believe that makes for an argument, because one always has to question everything. Sex is for procreation, thus the urge for continuation for the species, but more critical than continuation of the species is survival itself. Hence mass media and all that also capitalises on what we eat, even more irresistible, thus all the obesity. Is that supposed to mean that we should eat bland food? You eat quality food, but don't overindulge where it may ruin your health. The learning process in sex is very important for women, because it is not straightforward for a woman to orgasm. And, yes, orgasming is important in the life of an organism, best demonstrated by the way males have wet dreams if masturbation and such are repressed for whatever religious/cultural reasons - else the male reproductive system atrophies ("plumbing doesn't work right"). Women in the nineteenth century would go to doctors to "have their nerves treated for hysteria" - and do you know what this was? It was merely the doctor's stimulation of the women so she could have an orgasm and relieve tension. Simply because women didn't even know what to ask of their husbands who just did the basics. And many women will never learn on their own. Different experiences mean different perspectives as in a situation which requires problem-solving. You find out what clicks for you. You find what makes the experience of good quality for you, who truly cares to "treat" your "nerves." As for quality sex, it doesn't ruin your health. Unlike quality food which CAN intoxicate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 This is a major problem and has formed a society dependent on sexuality. In the US in particular, wherever you go sexual suggestions are thrown on ones face, not sex itself, just suggestions to get you attracted to whatever they are selling. This only creates unsatisfied wants which is harmful for the normal functioning of society. I heard so many times comparison of food and sex, that's just not true, those are different things I never heard of someone dying from sex starvation. Sex is not a necessity with the exception of procreation. I don't understand how it ties with survival. Stormig, I don't want to go into details about organism etc., suppose for women it is true whatever you said (though I doubt it is widespread). Can't the woman learn from her husband? Where is the need to go on an experimental stage? The same applies to men. My main argument is that sex desire can never be satisfied completely, therefore it will always cause troubles. Not a single person can truly say that he or she is completely satisfied from his/her sex life and there is nothing more to ask. Satisfiaction is only short lived and incomplete, after next round of satisfaction new desires come to be satisfied. There is never enough sex, and there is never a way to have all the sex one wants. Don't you see the problem here? In such a case the best thing to do is to not focus on desires, it's a hopeless case. Ideally one should avoid sexual thoughts as much as possible if not completely. All comes from the mind, if one has no sex desire in his/her mind it will never cause health problems, orgasm is not necessary if one does not want to have sex. But if one has desire it should be satisfied in moderation, indulgance is not the answer as it will increase your upcoming desire. That's my opinion after considerable thought on the subject and experience in real life. Sure its not easy but what is easy in this life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 I'm not comparing eating with sexuality per se. I am trying to compare the influence of media on people's habits with regard to eating and with regard to sex. If people can be confident of their eating habits, surely they should be as much in control of their sexual habits. Then again, we like variety in the food we take so we know what we like. You don't diss a country's cuisine until you try it - within your own reason and limits, of course. Same here. As for a woman learning from her husband - my first sexual experience was disappointing and it never improved because it was one person who couldn't think/try things out of their own box and I can't say I learned much. And I would never want to be where I was when I was 20 years old when I am 30 years of age. Also you are wrong about "more sex." Quality sex leaves one satisfied and sometimes even incapable of desire for a while, with the added bonus of positive learning - versus getting next to nothing and being "hysterical." This certainly is not true for everyone but it can make some people's lives pretty miserable without them knowing it until they are lucky, as one can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 (edited) Quality sex leaves one satisfied and sometimes even incapable of desire for a while That was my point too, at most you can be satisfied "for a while", nothing more. And if you can't find satisfaction then you will feel miserable, or hysterical as you put it. This only creates more problems not only for the unsatisfied person but also the surrounding people. If that person has any power he may excercise it for his selfish goal of finding satisfaction causing problems for others. I hope it is clear why frustration can cause many problems, and why self-restraint is important. Actually what I am saying is not against sex itself, but the desire for sex. One should curb the desire, if it is not possible then the second best option is to satisfy in moderation and try to have less desire in the future. Somehow it seems to me that a superb satisfaction is not necessary in order not to be hysterical, ordinary saitsfaction should be enough. Perhaps we should not argue any further I think we both have made our points clear. I used to think like you before, which is pretty much what every western youth* thinks and I have come to realize that it is not right. * I recently heard of an exceptional teenager movement in the US and Europe, these teenagers are for maintaining virginity until marriage. They wear silver rings as symbol of purity. Quite interesting and surprising, they party together and do the usual stuff like all teens do except they practice abstinance Edited August 10, 2004 by Sasun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Gevo and Stormig. Please stay away from each other as if you silly argument continues moderators will be forces to give you both warnings. If sex in the 50's was better and more often than now.. then when its morally right, ill have sex like its the 50's, thats all i have to say about this .. good day to all.. even Stormig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Sasun, I don't know how you can think like me if what we know doesn't even correspond. Yeah, otherwise we can't argue it further. After all, mine can be summarised with - either you use it or you lose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts