Is it seen as a bad thing for guys to turn down sex?

Thread Hop.

In a word: No.

Something I don't think anyone's specifically brought up: what if the man is just asexual? It happens. Some people honestly just aren't sexually attracted to anyone and that's alright.

Asexuals are not human and deserve to be looked down on, obviously, according to some in this thread.

@Katrika: Brought it up myself already. Last page, maybe some earlier. I'm sure someone else mentioned that.

And yeah, sadly society does see it as bad, even if it's not in reality.

Just a request. Can this thread focus on how people in society react to guys turning down sex, rather than whether it's a good or bad thing for guys to do so?

Whoa. I've read this whole thread and I haven't seen anybody claiming that asexuals or people who turn down sex without a concrete reason are bad people or 'subhuman'. Let's lose the hyperbole, unless you want the thread to be locked.

Actually, I think the thread might have already run its course.

The fact that it is somehow a "right" to look down on men who turn down sex implies that their decision should not be respected and they should not be regarded as human beings. If you respect somebody as a human being, you should respect their decisions in life, unless the said decisions disrespects yours.

edited 3rd Apr '12 9:12:07 PM by IraTheSquire

Yeah, well, I look down on people who spend hours in the bathroom caking themselves in makeup. I look down on people who spend all their free time talking about how drunk they got last night. There are all sorts of behaviours that I 'look down on'. But just because I don't understand why they do that particular thing, and think that it's a bad/pointless thing to be doing, that doesn't mean that I think they're somehow subhuman.

I don't agree with their point of view either, but you're claiming that they're saying something they are not.

There's a difference between thinking a certain action is bad and looking down upon people who do them. One is a judgment on the action itself and the other is a judgment on the people. We're talking about "looking down on guys who turn down sex" not "looking down on turning down sex". Looking down on people smacks of superiority and elitism.

edited 3rd Apr '12 10:02:57 PM by IraTheSquire

I think the distinction is less clear than you do. When you look down on an action, you almost invariably start to think more negatively of those who take such actions. Just throwing that one out there.

And I think that it would be weird for a man to turn down sex with an attractive lady, and I would be curious. I don't think I'd look down on them - some people have less active libidos, some people are gay, some people might be grieving the death of a loved one, some people might have extremely strong religious convictions. But it is (I think) a nonaverage response (that is, I think most men would probably go for it), and I would be curious what stopped them.

If it was a "meh" I'd probably be annoyed just as I would be if someone tore up a lottery ticket that said they won $100. Sure, nobody's forcing you not to, and you're not a bad person for doing it, but I would definitely feel like, "well if I'd had that ticket I'd have made better use of it."

Personally I think it's okay to judge people, by their actions.

Once again the ticket and money thing are completely borked as a comparison.

Sex has great(and often dire) consequences. Winning the lottery has none. You might not get all the cash right away or overall, but you still get a great thing for sure. Sex isn't like that for everyone.

Also, if they say meh, so what? The only person that might be annoyed is the girl, but that's understandable, as her feeling offended with that kind of response makes sense. But anyone else looking down, not their business. They don't know the actual reasons, so they have no right to say it.

Also, Elitism is basically treating a person as a subhuman. That's the entire point. Treating them like they're lesser than you.

edited 3rd Apr '12 10:27:03 PM by Hydronix

I must be the exception here because that's not how I work: I prefer to look deeper than just simply "he did this, therefore he must be X". But further discussion on that risk a derailment, so let's stop talking about that.

And I wouldn't be surprised if someone tore up a lottery ticket. While money is useful not everyone thinks that more money is better, and I can respect that, as odd as I think that idea is.

I dunno, I'd think someone would be stupid to tear up a winning lottery ticket no matter what (since even if they don't want the money they can give it to someone or to charity or something), but that's not what this thread is about.

^But that means taking money away from the hard working people at the lottery commission.

...who raised that money to give most of it to someone (and the rest to the government) in the first place.

No it doesn't, they still get paid.

What I meant to say was: this is becoming a derail.

I'm sure that they would welcome a chance to keep the money if it was offered to them

What I meant to say is, I think being genuinely not interested in sex is a good enough reason to turn it down in itself, and it's not really fair to say that one has to try sex to know if they'll like it. For some people, that would be the case, but there's also people where it's not.

I was set up like that when I was a teenager, and would've been blackmailed with rape if I had gone through with it considering what actually happened, so don't give me that crap about this doesn't happen.

Wait, why'd you think you'd have been blackmailed for rape?

Actually, let's not go very deep into anyone's anecdotal evidence.

If we can accept that certain types of scenarios could play out, the point that that scenario was supposed to prove has been made.

This time, the point was that one of the people involved in the sexual activity could do immoral things based on the fact that the act occurred, and a scenario that results in this is very easy to imagine, so no need to go deeper into it.

It'd just be off-topic and it would probably contain a bunch of things that would yield more derails.

edited 4th Apr '12 2:57:04 PM by BestOf

Another thing I spotted during the page-trawl:

(a bitter joke among us male students is that There Should Be A Law forbidding female students to have boyfriends who don't study at Delft UT, as it subtracts from the already small pool of available females).

Someone's got some pretty mighty entitlement issues here.

Entitlement. Now there's a word that gets throw around a lot.

Hehe, it never ceases to amaze me how many people seem to think getting drunk is some sort of achievement. Oh australia.

edited 4th Apr '12 3:12:51 PM by joeyjojo

You missed the part where it says 'joke'.

edited 4th Apr '12 3:08:43 PM by MidnightRambler

They were griping about how they were literally owed their female classmates' vaginas.

What would you call that if not entitlement?

No, but I also saw the part that said 'bitter'.

edited 4th Apr '12 3:10:24 PM by Iaculus