Sexual permissiveness does great damage to future sexual happiness?

OK, atalanda, you've got my attention.
So, from your studies, what are you learning about the bonding agents in the brain and their effect on relationships?

Have you read the book in question?
I'd LOVE to hear from you after you do, and report in on your conclusions about its conclusions in comparisons to the other studies you've read.
I honestly suspect that you will have far more insight into this issue, due to your broader studies, than any of the others on this post--myself included--so I'd like to see you take up the challenge and then write a response.

a fair and honest opinion. I respect that.

They also completely fail to realize that those teenagers sleeping around statistically have higher levels of sexual hormone coursing through their bodies not only causing their increased sex drive but also causing severe changes in mental thought patterns.

WHO GAVE THESE PEOPLE DEGREES?

I'd have to disagree, everydayxangels.

If a person is sleeping with ONE individual in a monogamous situation, and has bonded with that person, then it does not contradict the article's point. To the contrary, it is saying that those chemicals exist precisely for that reason.

what they say is that when individuals instead sleep with a series of partners and each time they break it off afterward to go screw someone else, they are essentially training their brains to dissociate the act of coitus (which releases chemicals that normally cause bonding) from relationships. Over a long period (not a single or even a couple of instances) this can have deliterious effects on how the individual bonds with a partner.

what you say flies in the face of common sense and experience. How common is it that we see young ladies especially have intercourse and their feelings for that person intensify afterward? It's VERY common!

What does common sense tell you, as a young lady, about the "marriability" of a young man who repeatedly has relationships during which he also has "flings"? Do you think he can "unlearn" those habits? Or has he perhaps trained himself to dissociate sex from a meaningful relationship? "It doesn't mean anything, it was just sex". Ever heard that phrase before?

You're making the false assumption that I'm heterosexual. So I, as a "young lady", have little to say about a young man's marriageability.

Nice dude reference ;P

I'm sorry, I missed the part in the article where they showed any correlation between driving a car and hormones released by the brain that cause the person to bond with the car.

so do you deny that in our past people were LESS promiscuous than today?

if so, based upon what?

i actually believed it...

In regards to STDs. Yes I am HIV positive and not ashamed of my status. I've enjoyed almost every experience I have had and would not take any of them back. Thanks to the miracle of modern medicines, my life expectancy is nearly that of every else’s.
Everyone’s precious flame of life will be extinguished someday; it matters not how. All that matter is how you enjoyed your time while your flame was burning bright

Hmmm...unfortunately you lend weight to this article. Especially with your outlook on relationships. I'm sorry for you.

No, he actually doesn't at all. The article suffers from the same logical error that all terrible scientists make. You can't infer causation from correlation. PIA never mentioned that his sleeping around caused him to not believe in relationships. He never mentions that before sleeping around he thought he would marry the first person he slept with.

This same sort of logical error would drive you to the conclusion that since most tall people wear long pants then if all tall people would have only ever worn shorts they wouldn't be so tall. Kinda stupid huh?

mr Ho speaks and his testimony does more to support the article than not.
So, according to "Mr Casual Sex in my Clubbing Days", relationship bonds are "unnatural societal creation and constraints".

You are a SAD individual on so many levels.

And now that I know that about you, your user image is SO FUCKING CREEPY!

My God, it makes me wonder if you're not another John Wayne Gacey hanging out and bragging about your sexual encounters.

I wonder how many people YOU infected selfishly and have made THEM reliant on the "miracles of modern medicine".

Pathetic example of a human being. Just disgusting.

That's a big stretch to infer that he intentionally infected people with HIV.

Touché

i didn't know anyone else knew what religion was. it's hardly ever brought up; having morales isn't cool nowadays.

Morals is definitely cool. I have pointed up in another post, that we learn only when we, ourselves do the thinking. You cannot teach someone anything.
They have to think for themselves, come to conclusions for themselves, use their own mind and no one can make someone think. You are the one who must have interest enough in a subject to think it through.

It is a process that can only happen from within.

I honestly believe religions, while seeming to offer a venue of thought or of right-thinking, only stand in the way of an individuals own path to personal morality.
If you are equivocating some teaching of some sort, you are not thinking of the true basis of a concept, only what someone told you.

You have to empty your head if you are to have all your faculties about you. Religion cannot help but try to fill your head.

They don't leave room for you, they don't trust that good and right-thinking can be trusted to your mind. They need to meddle, to inculcate, to keep you on the path, etc.

When the whole time, you are the only one who figure your life out.

i think you could be right, but there's not enough info int eh article to support your theory.

we know there are Christian sluts just as there are Christian virgins, so if you found that the women who slutted around got married and then had a lower divorce rate than the irreligious sluts, you could conclude that the differentiating factor was the religion.

But if Christians who were slutty got married and divorced with a similar rate as the irreligious sluts, then you probably conclude that the previous promiscuous behavior impacted both groups.

At least in this article, they don't get into that kind of analysis. Maybe they do in the studies they cite.

That's the thing I hate about news articles that cite scientific articles. They basically just summarize the researcher's interpretation of the data, they rarely go into any depth with the actual data or methodology.

I really don't see how people are able to trust citations to scientific articles they can't access.

yeah they never talked about doggy style or the superman. what gives?

They certainly have the tech to bring a device to market that would turn a saliva sample into a clean/no clean result within minutes.

It's just a chip with programming loaded. It could be very cheap.
(or maybe vagina swab)
You could market update-able buttons that anyone would know as having been updated that day. Green light/red light.

well that's what needs to be addressed. these immature adolescents are going around being promiscuous and spreading diseases like fox news spreads lies. i everyone were a little more considerate this would not be occuring.

What's the superman? You dive bomb off the hutch?

That's the group that has been passing the diseases for the last two thousand years.

I've been seeing that quote a lot lately. It appears in TWO locations primarily:

Any research showing that drug use is damaging to the user (instant response from those who pretend to be enlightened: "correlation does not equal causation")

And this post suggesting that casual sex can be damaging to the participants (instant response again: "correlation does not equal causation")

Place where you DON'T see the same (presumed) Libs say this: global warming posts.

On THOSE pages, correlation is taken as 100% irrefutable proof of causation.

Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice

RULES! - Here's my rule: All rules are beginner's rules.

It's something to think about.

Hey, yeah Alice in Wonderland starts today.

i saw the midnight showing last night (this morning).

Good?

Well, sorry. It does tend to be an automatic response when you have an education. It's a matter of looking at all the factors and employing your critical thinking skills. And most importantly, always looking into information bias. This article started off good, but started to smell fishy with the whole abstinence thing.

so if a scientist finds that abstinence is the best way of avoiding pregnancy and STDs, can you scientifically tell me that people who remain abstinent actually can get STDs and pregnant?

and if they also say they have found that people who run around fucking like bunnies eventually make it more difficult to bond sexually with ONE mate, are you actually going to tell me that this is illogical? it's the most sensical thing I've read on Current today.

Do you think that a person who, during his dating years, repeatedly cheated on his girlfriends will be A) MORE likely to cheat when married, B) LESS likely to cheat when married, or C) it won't make any difference.

I think there is NO WAY you can answer anything other than A.

Yeah and they went through the 'sexual revolution' years! Maybe only prudes had kids.

clearly you did not understand the article, but judging by your photo...i'm not surprised. is that the same one you use when you're cruising craiglist for other twinks?

go back and get your GED and then come back and comment.

Why are your nipples on Current?

Nipples, what nipples? Where? Did I miss some nipples?

And you know this because you read the book? you studied the bibliography? you are familiar with the cited references?
or because you just want to believe that?

according to at least one review of the book by someone who read it, it never refers to religion or God, but only to scientific studies

"This is one of the most important books any parent will ever read. Why? In scientific terms (that non-scientists can understand) it lays out the convincing evidence that sexual activity before adulthood/marriage not only can be psychologically and emotionally damaging to men and women, but can create a chemically patterned response in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, affecting even future relationships. Know a man who goes from woman to woman to woman, unable to commit to any lasting relationship? Have a female friend that consistently chooses bad/abusive men to 'love'? There is no mention of "GOD", or religion, other than in a generalized way, which means that you can feel comfortable in sharing this book both with people of faith and non-religious folk. After reading it the first time, I ordered 5 more copies for friends and family. "

How about this one from a retired pscyhiatrist:
"As a retired psychiatrist and internist, I found the book informative and challenging for today's adolescents and young adults especially. The chemical changes that occur in the brain as a reaction to exciting events (values neutral) in one's life are verifiable and the behavioral conditioning that occurs is scientifically true. That is why behavior that has been conditioned over a period of time and becomes habitual is very difficult, but not impossible, to change. Harvard research psychiatrist George Vaillant reported that long term follow up studies has shown that the ability to delay gratification and tolerate frustration are key ingredients to a happy and successful adjustment in life.
Other studies have shown that the refusal of people to delay gratification and engage in irresponsible behavior partly explains the marked increase in marital and family fragmentation, sociopathic behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, criminality, suicidal ideation, selfishness and self centeredness, hostile intolerance to differing viewpoints, and a lack of concern, compassion and sensitivity towards others. The challenge is to weigh the long term consequences of immediate gratification behavior, return to greater civility and become more respectful of other's feelings, attitudes and values. "

Thank you Uni, if it has feathers, web feet and quacks like a duck most likely it IS a duck!
People like Curtis just go off when we refuse to buy into their propaganda, and the science they trot out is much like the science that was being used to determine how many angels could dance on the head of a pin....

whose propaganda, tyr? what makes you think i'm part of any particular group with any propaganda? Unlike Unimatrix, I quickly researched the group that wrote the book, and read some reviews of the book. According to them, it's not a religious book, no mention of God or religion, and they said the book makes sense.

which made me wonder why folks like uni and you can presume to label a book and dismiss it entirely without any research, or having read it, simply because it contradicts your own wishful thinking.

You're right. I like the beginning of the article but they should have stopped while they were ahead.

"they are telling you that teens who have even had as much as ONE sexual partner are at risk" that's not what the article said.
"But that bonding, which acts like adhesive tape or Velcro, is weakened when people tear away at its power by breaking off with a sexual partner and moving on from one to another to another. So when it does finally come time to bond permanently with a spouse, the ability to bond is damaged" it suggests that it is a long-term problem. not something that happens after one fuck.

There is a lot missing int he article, such as any explanation about the cited research, etc.

Some good lawyers ought to sue the government to get out of people's lives. To disallow government from meddling in the privacy of citizens.

maybe start an amendment - but that would be like going to other solar systems, it would happen during your lifetime.

these studies come and go, change from month to month. personal experience says it is not what we did (or not) before a marriage that will cause problems...but what we do after committing to a person. sleeping around is a part of my life that should not be denied to me. i want to experience what i can when i can. nor do i want to have to teach sexuality to
another...or have them teach me. when i am finally ready to commit, i will promise that i am not bringing anything to the relationship that we both don't know about.

ryan, no one is talking about banning it or making it illegal, if that's why you mean by "should not be denied to me". But that's not a moral perspective, that's an egocentric and hedonistic perspective, just like your drug use. You are essentially saying "I love to get stoned and have sex, and no one should tell me it's bad for me." Just because you love pot and casual sex does not mean that pot and casual sex are good for you.

"personal experience says it is not what we did (or not) before a marriage that will cause problems...but what we do after committing to a person" Now you've just entered silly-ville.
REALLY? so if you developed a drug addiction before marriage and never admitted to it (to yourself or anyone else), and then you get married, don't you think the addiction could have an effect on your marriage? (especially when kids enter the picture?)

So, if you developed a sex-addiction, what then? isn't it the same thing? How many cases do we have to see of sex-addicted people like Tiger screwing up their lives before you think "hmmm, maybe the problem was already there when he got married?"

"i will promise that i am not bringing anything to the relationship that we both don't know about." and again, if you can't even think honestly with yourself about what your drug use and habitual casual sexual encounters could do to you psychologically and physically, then how are you going to keep this promise? What you are really saying is "I will promise to not bring anything into the relationship that I can admit having wrong with me" nothing more or less.

you can make that accusation, and I won't argue it because I don't know enough about this particular "scientific group" to know that it's false.

But the same logical skepticism should be applied to the whole global climate change thing. However, in that case, I see the left completely jump in with both feet and cry "why would scientists lie?!"

what's good for the goose...

My initial suspicions are confirmed by your post..thanks

A number of people have touted amerpersand's post, so I've read and reread the post.

There are a couple of issues I have with the article.
First, a blatant bias that is not, at least in the article, substantiated by relevant facts.

"... Most abstinence-promoting programs waste the government's money funneling misinformation directly to adolescents." The word WASTE here is an extremely biased term. In what way is it a "waste"? What makes it a "waste"? How is suggesting to teens that they abstain from sex "a waste"? Simply because many teens will continue to have sex does not mean that NONE will receive the message and abstain. What documentation is provided to validate the opinion? NONE.

"But one such group, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, has another audience in mind—medical students. With the help of Congress, the institute has finagled $200,000 out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a sexual-health curriculum for doctors in training. It's a small bit of pork, but it represents the hijacking of a government agency that normally funds research based on merit. And the CDC's imprimatur could persuade medical schools to use the institute's work."

How can $200k of funding to try to teach about abstitence as an alternative equate to being "a hijacking" of policy based "upon merit"? This implies two things: first, that it is a "forced takeover", rather than adding one additional tool to use, and second, that there is NO merit to the argument. Based upon what?

If the "CDC's imprimatur could persuade medical schools to use the institute's work", then is the author actually suggesting that medical schools are incapable of detecting the absence of merit in the study, but the author is somehow privileged with the clarity and omniscience to make this call?

Again, based upon WHAT?

you kind of prove the point of the article