Bush Leagues wrote:you end up meeting someone in Macroeconomics 201, and there's immediate attraction, but almost all infatuation
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I don't know about all y'all, but for me nothing screams hot, torrid, furious bodice-ripping bestial passion like 'aggregate supply', 'Pigouvian taxation' and 'gross national product'.
Bush Leagues wrote:
We beat ya twice before, we'll do it again!
... What do you mean 'we', kemosabe?My accomplished ancestors...
CaoCaoTsundere wrote:I should have named this thread "society is in decadency" or "kids nowadays are despicable" because that was my point not sex itself, the other day some kids were killing a cat in the neighborhood...future serial killers
Watching the responses of this post, i have noticed that i was right, in fact i'm outdated. Rip 90s generation
It's not so much that, I don't think. I was born in '86, and for the most part I agree with you. I'm not a fan of sex sans
attachment / romance / love, as I've been rather emphatic about arguing on other threads. The thing is that I tend to think that for a lot of people, sex has a tendency to form its own attachments on a purely neurochemical level whether we like it or not. People wouldn't get lovesick or heartbroken otherwise.
Sun Fin wrote: Bush Leagues wrote:
Sun Fin wrote:I'm really happy that I'm building a friendship with my girlfriend that isn't purely built on physical attraction.
Let's talk about this for a bit, because this is also interesting.
So I would say that physical attraction (and each person's physical needs) are also really important to a relationship, but other things are also critical. I'm also of the opinion that a deep emotional bond makes the physical things (particularly sex) even better. I've had sex when it didn't mean much emotionally, and sex where I was completely in love with my partner. The first one is nothing to right home about. The second one is something that makes life worth living.
Sorry I didn't mean to give off the wrong impression there. I think that my girlfriend is beautiful and I wouldn't date her if there wasn't physical attraction. The point I was making is that there needs to be more than that. I saw many of my friends at university fall for a girl, have passionate sex for a month or two and then when that burned out they realised that they had nothing in common and actually they had no interest in trying to find something to keep them together. As opposed to the way round we're doing it (my girlfriend is also called Beth by the way
) where we found ourselves attracted to each other and have built a friendship whilst slowly becoming more intimate. I feel that is a far healthier way round to do it. Then when/if we're ready to make a permanent commitment, ie marriage we will begin having sex.
I can see where you're both coming from on this one, but I have to respectfully defer with both opinions presented here. I'll start by saying where I agree.Bush Leagues
, what you're saying here is very much true - the biological element and the emotional-intellectual-spiritual element of a romantic coupling tend to go together, and you can't really do the latter without at least having some basis in the former. Sun Fin
, I agree with you also that without building up the emotional-intellectual-spiritual side of the romance, the biological-attraction part can't really ultimately be sustained.
But I recoil at the very idea of a model relationship, as though all relationships have to develop in this preconceived, linear way. Sex-ed in public school taught us that you progress from lust to trust to sex to something more permanent, but my personal experiences have been a lot messier. Full disclosure: I'm no role model for anybody, I should say. I've had one one-night stand which was (on my side) purely based on biological, physical interest - that was a total train-wreck. Other romances I had which started from purely physical interest turned out to be not what my would-be partner was looking for, or else unhealthy for everybody involved.
And the romance which preceded my marriage began with something more like intellectual interest, if that makes any sense. When we first met, the now-Mrs. WeiWenDi was willing to argue with me online and off, and discuss art and history and politics with me, and I started getting more interested in her on that level. It's kind of weird to put it this way, but the intellectual component almost turned into
physical attraction. (She still teases me about that.)
I'm not saying people have to do things my way. In fact, most people probably shouldn't. But the idea of having 'common interests' or 'common bonds' before you start off is kind of BS. Part of the attraction for me was how different my wife was, and how she was willing to argue or even fight with me when she thought I was wrong. And part of the adventure was being open to new experiences. I was more into nerdy classical stuff; I didn't even know
about Jin Yong's wuxia
novels or Mo Yan before my wife introduced them to me. She's shown me way more contemporary popular Chinese movies than I thought I'd ever see. And in turn I introduced her to Lord of the Rings
Obviously you need some
kind of common basis to start from, but women and men are different
, biologically, emotionally, intellectually, ontologically. And any successful heterosexual romance will need to involve negotiating that difference successfully, rather than pretending it isn't there.
But yes, leaving sex until after marriage is usually a good idea. (Again, though, I'm no role model. I never followed that rule myself, and I came to this conclusion largely through getting repeatedly burned like a total idiot.)
Bush Leagues wrote:I basically agree that society has serious issues. I don't think this is the fault of the new generation, or technology, or anything like that. I have a suspicion as to why things are becoming the way they are, but that's all it is. Maybe it's always been like this, and we just don't know because we didn't live in those times. I feel like I know next-to-nothing about how everyday society was like in modern times (except the last 10-15 years or so).
Well, every age has its problems. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of our problems nowadays can be attributed to the changes in the social structure that took place between the early '70's and mid '80's at the collective hands of our parents' generation - the sexual revolution and Reaganomics, taken together, have changed the basic rules of engagement. Wages have been stagnating since 1978; even though more and more women are working outside the home, working-class families are still having problems making ends meet.
In such circumstances, and such an environment, cultural confusion may indeed be shaping people's attitudes and behaviour, including in ways that CaoCaoTsundere
is describing here.