Survey: /r9k/... why aren't you sex positive?

>>37438766
Well sex should be viewed as a reward for a relationship rather than a momentary release of pleasure. People often use the HUR DUR but it feels good argument but its the sensation of mindless that truly enlightens someone.

>>37438766
Being sex-positive and engaging in casual sex inherently reduces yourself and others participating to mere sexual objects, isn't this the exact opposite of what these women wnat?

Women subreddits are fucking horrible.

What was it, troll x chromosomes or some shit? It's supposed make fun of misogynists but most of the time they're just wringing their hands.

>>37438802
Sex is an action, not a reward incel. >>37438855
Feel the liberation goyim.

You can see the first response in that thread is someone telling her not to do that, though.

I don't want to do something so intimate with a total stranger, and it holds no appeal for me.
I can't think of anything worse than using someone for my immediate physical gratification.
Sorry.

>>37438766
Casual safe consensual sex is a wonderful thing.

Only ugly loosers are bitter about it because they dont have to share the experience.

Seriusly guys tell me an objective reason why you are against casual sex.

>>37438986
because it ruined my life

>>37438986
It destroys your ability to pair-bond.

People that have casual sex are literally incapable of love.

>>37438766
Betas think being in a relationship grants you free sex so they try to enter a relationship with ANY and EVERY girl for the wrong reasons.

This makes them very disingenuous and untrustworthy, cause theyre fake and only want sex lol. They try to get at everything that moves hahahaha fucking pathetic.

You know how you can tell if someone is bullshitting their feelings and looking for validation? When they make a big public post on the internet about it.

File: mad.png (90KB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1500x1200px

>>37438986
Waiting until marriage statistically produces the greatest results.

Because everyone mocks me for not having any.

File: 1495817646628.jpg (56KB, 450x656px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 450x656px

>>37438766
I've tried casual sex and it doesn't fulfill me. Sex with a lover and long-term partner left me feeling warm and generally just okay with things. Sex with a friend I dearly love left me feeling excited and full of butterflies. Sex with just somebody doesn't do that. It left me feeling empty pretty much immediately post-orgasm.

It doesn't feel like this "sex-positive" attitude celebrates sex so much as it cheapens it. Sex is definitely good and beautiful, yes, and it shouldn't be condemned considering that it's the force that allows the human race to continue existing. But there's definitely more to it in my experience than just getting off. Not even saying that you shouldn't fuck just to fuck, but I don't feel like I ought to be fucking people I don't sincerely appreciate for who they are inside.

Maybe that's naive and mushy or whatever, but I know I'm not the only one who feels the same way. This sex culture is degrading to something good.

File: 1484654884702.jpg (48KB, 590x630px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 590x630px

>>37438855
Women likes sex positivity because they can't think beyond the short term. In the short term it gives them power as they know they can jump to just about any dick if someone can't meet their demands. But your right that it reduces them to a sexual object and in the long term that reduces their sexual value, we're seeing the first generation that at large isn't marrying and that's because females are jumping from dick to dick freely, and no man wants to be with an unfaithful whore, in the long term many females have screwed themselves since unlike previous generations they won't be able to find a provider as they've already exhausted they're worth.

>she's already had sex with more than one guy
>she thinks she hasn't been engaging in casual sex this whole time

lmao what bible did she read?

I'm sex negative because sex is a dangerous activity that spreads disease and you try to cheat nature being a degenerate hedonist but you are gambling with creating human life, sex and reproduction are always linked and there is always a risk of it happening. If you don't want to have children, don't have sex, its that simple.

File: im glad snapes out the closet.jpg (45KB, 306x273px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 306x273px

This is going to be an outlier, but oh well:

I'm not sex positive because I'm a radical feminist and I feel that it only perpetuates misogyny.

A woman going on Facial Abuse and describing the experience as "empowering" has to be delusional. It's like a black person calling their white boss "massa".

I think pornography encourages anti-woman attitudes and live action porn has sub-par working standards for all its workers.

Outside of feminism, I find that "sex positivity" is just a way for people to feel bad about their own fucked up sexual dysfunctions and failures. I knew so many girls who ridiculed me in high school for being a feminist, who suddenly started preaching sex positvity on Facebook after their nudes got leaked, they cheated on their boyfriends, or they got doxxed as a webcam model. It's obviously not coming from a place of political critique, but a cheap tactic to pat themselves on the back and soothe their anxieties.

>>37438766
>share my joy
This angers me more than anything else would (that she could have possibly wrote). Joy is pure, and joy is right. What this girl is feeling is temporary degenerate pleasure, NOT FUCKING JOY. Reading these sorts of things genuinely makes me no longer want to live on this planet - or I guess "no longer be of this world," even though I'm not religious.

>>37441411
I agree. I'm a fucking 32 year old virgin and I'll probably never get to have sex, but I agree.

>>37441497
>2017
>being a male feminist
gtfo numale cuck

>>37438766
I am. I'm just too ashamed of my body to live that kind of life.

File: Seraphim-of-Sarov-feeding-a-bear-source-of-wood-carving-.jpg (77KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x375px

>>37441535
Accept Jesus Christ and become a recluse.

File: 1495775616243.png (74KB, 238x189px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 238x189px

>>37438986
Been there. Done that. This guy:
>>37441411

It's actually the experience of it that turned me off the idea. I was raised in a pretty "sex-positive" environment where my parents were fine with us having casual sex under their roof, too, so it's not like I've got some subconscious thing against it from my upbringing. I just don't like it as much based on my experience of it, and I find that the more naive and romantic notions of sex people have actually resonate more with that experience than the "sex-positive ones."

There's no objective way to phrase this, because it's largely based in emotions. It feels insincere. It feels cheap. It feels empty, and like it's missing something. It doesn't feel fulfilling. There's an element of bonding and sharing and celebration of one another that's supposed to be there, and it's not.

I could try to be "objective" and make appeals to oxytocin and such, but frankly I don't think we even fully understand sex on a psychological level. The "sex positive" attitude just feels cheap and lacking. I might just be in this for a different high, though, so who knows?

>>37441497
What do you think about sex acts that would be considered "degrading" outside of porn, between people with a healthy and loving realtionship to one another? I like to be scratched and bitten, and my friend likes to be strangled and beaten. Is that still degrading if we're not doing it on camera for money?

>>37441588
As if your virginity or age invalidates your opinion.

>>37441662
Already am a recluse, but have no faith.

>/r9k/... why aren't you sex positive?

Because I don't want to put my penis in a girls meat flaps, that Chad released his gooey white disease in.

>>37441497

I don't think either of these points really follow. You could feel that normal sex is positive without also treating obviously exploitative porn videos as "positive," and I don't think the hypocritical expediency of the girls you mention really influences the validity of the general idea.

I would agree, though, that using sex positivity as a cover for porn or behavior that you're actually ashamed of does stink of convenience.

>>37438766
I think everyone should stop having sex for 10 years. Everyone is so focused on it and it's tearing everything apart.

>>37438766
So what happens when you start dating somebody and have this weird collection of "friends" who you've casually fucked before? Do you still keep them as friends as if nothing happened? How do fuckbuddies/fwb even work. Genuinely curious.

File: Arena Ignatius Brianchaninovhr.jpg (75KB, 576x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 576x800px

>>37441688
then read.

>>37441768
haha dude why are you thinking about that
dont be a creep just be yourself

>>37441669
>I like to be scratched and bitten, and my friend likes to be strangled and beaten.
i've heard women on multiple occasions mention that they like to be roughed up but rarely hear men say they like doing that to women, funnily enough the only times i heard guys say that was middleschool/juniorhigh, i've theorized that as men grow up they get taught feminist ideals that scare them off these ideas which in the long run hurts women since so many of them enjoy being used.

File: Larry Kramer - Faggots.png (7KB, 556x67px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 556x67px

>>37441603
Where did I say I was male?

>>37441669
>degrading sex acts within a relationship

I can't support legislating people's private homes, but I can criticize them.

I think there's a difference between pain stimuli and degradation. Like zit popping, sometimes gross or painful things can be oddly pleasurable. I love biting the inside of my cheek until it hurts. I don't think that's inherently degrading.

However, I am skeptical of the idea that consent or love automatically makes something okay. Take raceplay, for example. Calling someone a dirty fucking chink is always going to be degrading. An orgasm doesn't make something moral or psychologically healthy.

I don't know anything about your relationship outside of your kinks, so I have to withhold judgement. With that said, I am suspicious of anyone who gets pleasure from inflicting pain, and think those who enjoy the infliction of pain have personal issues that need to be resolved, rather than catered to.

Is there really a difference between you cutting yourself, or picking out all your eyelashes, and asking your lover to beat you like a drum?

>>37441731
I think you misunderstood me, which makes sense because this thread is all over the place.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with sex of itself.

>>37442040
>Where did I say I was male?
i didn't imply that ? like at all ?

>>37438766
>no you shouldn't be allowed to say what you want
>or own what you want
>or run a business as you want
>BUT KEEP THE GOVERNMENT/SOCIETAL CONVENTION OUT OF MY SEX LIFE, except when I want free contraception and abortion k thanks

t. every single sex positive "person"

>>37438986
Women with less partners have happier and more meaningful marriages. Contrary to what is claimed, casual sex devalues future couplings and relationships as sex is meant to be a mechanism within those contexts.

>>37442040
>Is there really a difference between you cutting yourself, or picking out all your eyelashes, and asking your lover to beat you like a drum?
>Like zit popping, sometimes gross or painful things can be oddly pleasurable. I love biting the inside of my cheek until it hurts.
I'm not the person to ask your question, because I'm a trichtillomaniac who likes inflicting pain on himself and knows it isn't healthy. And incidentally, we both love popping zits and actually pop each other's sometimes.

>However, I am skeptical of the idea that consent or love automatically makes something okay. Take raceplay, for example. Calling someone a dirty fucking chink is always going to be degrading. An orgasm doesn't make something moral or psychologically healthy.
Well, yeah, but punching someone in the face and strangling them half to death isn't healthy or moral, either, but if somebody asks me to do it while my cock's inside them I'll probably do it.

>I am suspicious of anyone who gets pleasure from inflicting pain, and think those who enjoy the infliction of pain have personal issues that need to be resolved, rather than catered to.
>>37441783
It's strange, right? Beating, choking, and the like don't seem to be things normal guys are compelled to do in bed. Seems like the girls have to ask, and then the guy's often hesitant or uncomfortable with it.

Which is odd, because other acts of violence, like biting and scratching, seem like natural compulsions the same way that thrusting your hips and kissing do.

Not sure how to parse that all out, but it's thought-provoking.

>>37438766
shit like this really makes me want to off myself
its just so depressing

Its near impossible for me to even get with a girl or work up interest in one. I dont know if theres something wrong with me, but I just cannot get any interest in these women when it matters. I am biologically attracted to women, but beyond that it stops.

>>37438766
Because I'm positive no one would have sex with me

>>37441497
>I'm not sex positive because I'm a radical feminist and I feel that it only perpetuates misogyny.
I'm legitimately wondering how someone like you even reached this board and why you stay.

>>37442040
>Is there really a difference between you cutting yourself, or picking out all your eyelashes, and asking your lover to beat you like a drum?
I would argue yes.

Cutting yourself comes from a place of pain and can cause long term damage. When the girl is tied up and whipped, the primary feeling is satisfaction and comes from a place of lust with no long term damage. Obviously someone in an unhealthy state of mind may consent to something damaging that they don't really want, but I doubt you would say all women with a BDSM kink are damaged.

>>37438766
>two X chromosomes
>implying chromosomes dictate your gender

wow transphobic.

>>37438766
Yeah I remember my first time having casual sex. It wasn't exactly fulfilling but not emotionally damaging either. He rubbed my clit in all the right places, sucked my boobs, and fingered me just how I liked it. It felt amazingggg, I still masturbate to the thought of it to this day. I didn't want to be with him long term though so I treated him like shit for fun and he left. No real regrets.
I just wish I could find a worthy, tall boyfriend who makes good money (I'll lie and say I'm a virgin of course though)

>>37438986
Casual sex gave my best friend aids

>>37442075
"Being a male feminist", and then calling me a numale.

>>37442160
Those things are only correlated. Saying that casual sex causes devaluation is an assumption.

Sexual abuse and mental illness can cause promiscuity. Those things are more likely to negatively impact relationships than number of partners. I'm sure a sane, healthy person could be serially monogamous and then have a stable marriage.

>>37442163
>chicks are into violence

I don't doubt that some women are into this shit, but I also think that people will lie about their sexual preferences because they assume that's what their partner wants.

I have male friends who coincidentally have lots to say about cunnalingus the moment an attractive woman walks into the room.

If you have a generation of women raised on porn, and where women who are prudish are made fun of (see any joke about women who don't swallow), they'll probably emphasize their slutiness to get boyfriends.

See "female chauvinist pigs", the meme about fat chicks giving good head.

>>37438766
I'm sex positive but apparently I'm a monster because I think it applies to people under the age of 18

>>37438766
From her comment history she's clearly a minor. I reckon her parents just want her to wait till she is 18. Shame.

>>37442438
I say the same shit about girls except, a better looking bitch with a fat ass, nicer titties and prettier face... stay classy faggot r9k, god I hate every single one of you... it's your stupidity and ego just makes me wanna line up every one of you and have a firing squad unleash lead

>>37442160
Well men like yourself will die lonely virgins if you reject all women because they have had sex before. Also, thats slut shaming and its 2017. Grow up.

>>37442246
>cutting yourself comes from damage
There's lots of medical conditions that involve self harm that do not require a history of past abuse.

>and let's not pretend that most kinksters aren't working through shit

>bdsm is different, the woman feels satisfaction!
The euphoria expressed by kinksters is similar to the adrenaline high experienced by self mutilators.

>all women with a BDSM kink are damaged

Wouldn't be so absolute, but in general, yes.

Your whole argument is that "kinksters aren't damaged" and "it's difference because they have fun!", which are both wrong.

>>37442040
>I don't think there's anything morally wrong with sex of itself.

Fair enough then, have a good night.

Why should /r9k/ be sex positive when they don't get to have sex themselves?

>>37442597
>people politely talking on r9k
what

>>37438766
Not matter what position I take am not getting laid .

>>37438986
Diminished ability to pair bond

File: 1494351651990.jpg (26KB, 600x668px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x668px

>>37438766
>ABORTION IS A RIGHT
>CONTRACEPTION IS A RIGHT
>EDUCATION IS A RIGHT
>EWW, YOU AREN'T "ENTITLED" TO SEX YOU FUCKING MISOGYNIST
Because every fucking stupid, disgusting, vapid whore who identifies as "sex-positive" is a hypocritical cunt. They continuously demand that they be afforded every luxury in the world, yet recoil in disbelief when someone suggests something that might inconvenience them. How is sex any different than the other things that appear to be a human right? It's certainly far more natural and necessary to being a healthy, functioning human being than a college degree is. Their view on abortion is another thing I find ironic. They want to have all the sex they want yet don't want to deal with the natural consequences of having it, and not only do they want to have it, they want to force you to hand over your tax dollars to pay for it, whether you agree with it or not. Why? Because anything they like is immediately made into a human right, and anything they don't is ascribed a bullshit, contrived excuse as to why it doesn't constitute one. Give me one legitimate reason why sex is not a human right but abortion, education and contraceptives are. You can't, because everything you decide is a "human right" ultimately benefits you, and is completely arbitrary. I could easily say that gasoline, electricity and lawn care are all human rights; they are just as arbitrary and convenient for me as anything you claim is a "right." So why not sex?

The reason for this is because women are overgrown children. They don't know what they want or why, they just follow the herd mentality and blame everyone else when their shitty ideas fucking destroy everything just like everyone with any sense told them it would. Enfranchising the masses with political power was a bad enough choice, but giving it to women was the stupidest idea we ever could've conceived.

>>37443799
>Give me one legitimate reason why sex is not a human right

It requires the consent of two parties, not just one, which means that one party might be harmed while the other is benefited. Even a classic liberal, the kind libertarians pretend to be, does not have an argument for why one party should be forced against their will into an action they do not desire, especially an action so close and dear to the human experience.

I look forward to your impotent writhing, MR activist.

>>37443837
That argument could easily be made about abortion, too. I don't think most people sign a transfer of ownership agreement about their sperm when they cum inside a woman.

>>37443799
Abortion is a right because it is an extension of a person's medical autonomy. You cannot be forced to donate organs, therefore a woman can't be forced to sustain another individual's life.

Contraception and education as "rights" are a bit more controversial, but produce an overwhelmingly societal good.

>How is sex any different than the other things that appear to be a human right?

You're not entitled to sex for reasons >>37443837 described.

>It's certainly far more natural and necessary to being a healthy

Naturalistic fallacy. And it's not necessary at all, you won't die without sex.

>abortion negates consequences
In order for something to warrant a consequence, it has to be a moral wrong. Why is sex morally wrong? And is pregnancy a fair or equal punishment for both men and women? Or do you feel that women deserve more punishment (pregnancy)? Or do you feel that men deserve more punishment (child care)? What moral grounds do you base this on?

What's sad and funny about this post is that you're clearly angry about hypocrisy in the political left. I empathize with that. However, your argument is based in ad hominems - that because a group of people who push for X idea are doing so for selfish reasons, therefore X idea is wrong.

That's the irony of your post: You hate the left for coming to political conclusions for their own personal sake, and yet your reactionary opposition to the left and condemnation of them is not based on solid moral grounds, but your own personal failures. You hate these people because you don't fit in with them.

>>37443799

This.

You're forgotting:

>MATERNITY LEAVE IS A RIGHT
>SUBSIDISED MEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE FOR WOMEN HAVING BABIES IS A RIGHT
>DOING LITERALLY ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR VAGINAS IS A RIGHT
>WHITE COLLAR JOBS FOR WOMEN IS A RIGHT
>THE STATE ENFORCING NUMEROUS LAWS TARGETTING MEN PRIMARILY OR EXCLUSIVELY IS A RIGHT
>PROTECTION AND PROVISION BY MALES IS A RIGHT

All the sex positive women promote this. They've done this since the first wave. It's not hypocrisy - they're just liars, they want to exploit men as much as possible while denying men even their most basic MORAL human rights, ONTOP of all the shit mentioned above. I'm as sex-positive and liberal as they come - but roasties should be toasted.

File: 1496145923702.png (253KB, 912x1491px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 912x1491px

>>37441497
Why do you think radical feminists are necessary in a first world country?

>>37443837
>Implying I'm a Libertarian
>Implying I'm an MRA
First off, let's dispel this myth right now.
>It requires the consent of two parties, not just one, which means that one party might be harmed while the other is benefited.
Doesn't the transfer of money to cover your abortion come from taxation levied by the state? What if someone is a Christian who believes life begins at conception? Or a Buddhist who adheres to ahimsa? What if they don't consent to having their money taken from them at gunpoint to fund something they find to be reprehensible?

>You cannot be forced to donate organs, therefore a woman can't be forced to sustain another individual's life.
These are completely different cases. A pregnant woman made the conscious choice to have sexual intercourse, knowing full well the potential consequences of said action. She is responsible for conceiving the embryo and is thus personally responsible for either aborting it or bringing it to term. It is not the responsibility of others to clear up a woman's poor choice. I am not against abortion being legalized, I just do not understand why it must be paid for by taxpayers, and why women are entitled to it for no cost at all.
>Naturalistic fallacy. And it's not necessary at all, you won't die without sex.
I never said you would die without it, but the mental and emotional effects of not having sex for one's entire life are certainly more psychologically destructive than having to shell out a couple dollars for a box of fucking condoms.
>In order for something to warrant a consequence, it has to be a moral wrong.
No, a consequence is simply a reaction to an action. Push a swing forward, and the consequence is that the swing swings forward. Put your hand on a stove, the consequence is a burnt hand. Be a stupid whore, the consequence is that you may end up pregnant. Consequences are not inherently tied to morality and punishment. They are natural effects of actions undertaken.

>>37443799
Rights are imaginary, granted and enforced arbitrarily, sex is not a right because not enough people deem it to be.

>>37443932
>In order for something to warrant a consequence, it has to be a moral wrong.
Not even him, but how did you came to such assumption? Besides you are just missing the point, it's not the fact that bearing children is good or bad, but rather that father/motherhood it's a time/money consuming task and requires change of lifestyle, which women wants to avoid. It hurts the society and indirectly also them.

>>37441289
From wich cartoon is the girl ?
i wanna see the cartoon serie