What exactly is the appeal of casual sex? I really don't understand why it's so prevalent in society nowadays?
I would just feel more depressed having sex with someone I'm never going to see or talk to again. How is this fun? I might as well just masturbate.
That's pretty much it. glorified masturbation. its really only for people who want to have sex, but not have to worry about any strings being attached.
It's good man.
It's only prevalent among older generations which are the ones that Hollywood bases shit out of because they're boomers.
If you look at statistics they show that millennials lose their virginities later, have fewer sexual partners and their marriages are more stable (lower divorce rates). Younger generations are learning from the mistakes their parent's made pretty much.
I just want to lose my virginity. Casual sex everywhere on campus... literally can't get any
Nothing, there's no appeal. Few people do it, it's just a minority that's smeared all across the media.
This has the effect of making some people think it's culturally "in", which accounts for a large percentage of people who bother with it.
>What's the appeal of porn? I really don't understand why it's so prevalent in society nowadays?
>I would just feel depressed jacking off to someone I'm never going to see or talk to. How is this fun?
Casual sex is just masturbation but more pleasurable because sex is inherently more pleasurable than masturbation.
These are the words of a man who has literally never had sex.
Its kind of overrated bro.
Nothing beats having sex with someone you actually built a relationship with.
>Younger generations are learning from the mistakes
No, they're just growing more autistic because modernity is poisoning our brains.
People with different brains have different motivations. Some people like intimacy and pair-bonding ome people like putting dick in as many people as they can. Nobody is right or wrong as long as they're honest
Because sex with an attractive person feels better than jacking off for most people and not everyone has the same desires as you.
Doesn't matter, had sex.
Sociopathy is encouraged, common sense isn't so common anymore, and people aren't taught the dangers or they just plain don't care because they seek instant satisfaction; aren't willing to put work into long term satisfaction/an actual relationship. Basically some people are just becoming more and more ignorant and care less and less about their futures.
>and their marriages are more stable (lower divorce rates)
I hear this statistic is due to millennials in general just not marrying due to financial stress and growing up in a culture where divorce was booming.
So the ones that do get married really mean it.
Also most married millennials are reaching their late 30s now right?
I'd give it at least another decade before we can say for sure marriages are stable.
I'm in a relationship, but I also have a good amount of casual sex on the side. One of the things I like about it (other than it feels fucking great) is that it makes me feel desirable. Once you're in a relationship, you're kinda off the market. Having casual sex helps me see that I still have it. People want to be with me. You also kinda have a similar thrill to when you're first dating. Sure, it's not as emotional, but at least for me, that's not what I'm looking for.
Have you done it? It's not the idea or principal, it's the mad cocaine rush of natural hormones from successfully banging. It's also good for confidence and mental health. I'm happily married and faithful and I've done the one night stands. They're not the same league at all. It's like comparing fruit with chairs.
Based and redpilled anonposter.
He's right, we're not doing this because our generation is any better, it's because technology and the effect it has on us are a disaster for the human race.
I dont understand it either.
I got into casual sex back when I was sure I was never going to find someone for me, but I was so depressed and terribly disgusted with myself I couldn't continue. I rather be lonely and miserable than feel that wretched emptiness inside while so close physically to someone that means nothing to you and you mean nothing to them.
Luck had it a year later after that I found love and a fulfilling relationship now I want no sex outside of that . Im never going back to that life, personally I just cant
What are you two grandpa's talking about technology and progress is literally making people smarter with each passing generation.
It's called the Flynn effect
Same. I would never want to have sex with someone I'm not in love with. Not even just the emotional aspect of it, but think of fucking diseases and gross bodies. It's honestly safer and more sanitary for everyone to just masturbate. I actually thinking fucking all the time but not being able keep a bf or gf is more pathetic than someone who hasn't ever had sex in a way. It shows a lack of stability among other things.
You sound terribly insecure. Yikes
>it's good for confidence and mental health
my fucking sides
People who have casual sex just seem like immature monkeys to me.
As a dude, I enjoy being able to have full control over a woman's body to eliminate her control of it via orgasm. I like having girls press their body on me and pressing mine on theirs, it literally makes my dick hard. That's the sensuality of it for me. Also, nutting on tits and tummy feels natural. The more I do it, the more powerful I feel as a person to have shared such a private thing with them.
Ok you are going to need some source on that because thats bullshit
Newer generations DONT want to be attached to a serious relationship, they want to "travel around the world, help the world and get to know themselves" or some bullshit like that.
Not everyone is the same. People have casual sex for different reasons.
>millenials reaching their late 30s
The fuck? No we're not.
>full control
This is why women don't want you for a long term partner. Women get zero pleasure out of you being an entitled prick or from your jizz on their bodies, and an orgasm is all mental for a woman, meaning little to do with your dick and more about clitoral action+romance. Get over yourself.
Partly the enjoyment of someone's company and pleasure without the burden of extra effort; partly the be a big hedonist or you must be gay/virgin/hate x meme.
Because most that have casual sex will have many sex partners. Only people that are not sure they can get many more will feel as you do.
Maybe. As far as I can tell, everyone involved is getting enjoyment out of it. Not too concerned about anything long term, anyways.
Casual sex is every woman's sexual strategy from the age of puberty until first pregnancy. Women strive to be in Chads harem and hope to get pregnant. Then they search for a secure beta to raise chads kid
>I would just feel more depressed having sex with someone I'm never going to see or talk to again. How is this fun? I might as well just masturbate.
I did get more depressed after having casual sex, but it gave me short term relief.
The point of it is human contact minus the problems of trying to sustain a relationship between people with nothing significant in common.
We didn't always just fuck once and then never see each other again; sometimes she'd give me a call when she was lonely and asked if I could come over and since we didn't really have anything to talk to, we'd just fuck. That's how we connected; that's the only thing that connected us.
Other times, I'd fuck a girl once and never want to see her again, because she's fucking ugly to me. Those ones get ghosted right after, and it's the ones that make me feel worse later on, but you can't have bad sex.
Inb4 a bunch of people whine and call you an inceleron.
Jesus fucking christ, why does Jow Forums have so many incel threads now? Why can't you brainlets stay on Jow Forums? This board is for adults, not whiny teenagers.
You are an incel, samefag. You are a low intelligence NEET who has never kissed a girl, and literally everything you say is false.
OP i think its more of a temporary fun power thing. At least thats why i do it. It lets you blow off some sexual steam without being judged because youll never see the other person again.
One night stand girls tend to be eager to please, so they will compliment men and let them take control during casual sex, offering men power over them.
Thats the only way i can explain it.
If you try to put your feelings into it, then yeah you can expect a lot of depression. Just have fun and be safe.
>I really don't understand why it's so prevalent in society nowadays?
It isn't. We currently live in the least promiscuous generation since the 1920's. Teen pregnancy is down, STD transmission is down and so is the average number of sexual partners. These numbers were confirmed in a study published in the Archive of Sexual Behavior, a peer review journal in sexology. The CDC itself states that these numbers are due greatly in part to a decrease in female sexual activity. In studies performed in the UK they found that not only are young adults less likely than previous generations to participate in casual sex but also less likely to engage in several other risky behaviors like drugs and petty crime. Long story short, it isn't prevalent, you've just somehow come under the false impression that your own personal observations are equal to fact.
>I would just feel more depressed having sex with someone I'm never going to see or talk to again. How is this fun? I might as well just masturbate.
Then go masturbate. Who gives a shit. Why do some people like tomatoes and other people don't? Who the fuck knows. Why does it matter? Your question is dumb and so are you.
Decadence in a decaying society. Mindless hedonism to fill in the void left by total amorality.
>If you look at statistics they show that millennials lose their virginities later, have fewer sexual partners and their marriages are more stable (lower divorce rates).
Wrong.
They are *slightly* less degenerate than the generation immediately preceding them, and you can almost wholly chalk that off to the internet providing a distraction from more conventional temptation. If you compare the numbers to a time when we actually gave a shit about morality, then they are still outright horrendous. for example, the average number of sexual partners (in the US) dipped from something like 7 or 8 two decades ago to 6 or 7 now. That's irrelevant noise, when the number should be one.
>their marriages are more stable (lower divorce rates).
Also categorical bullshit. There are lower *absolute* divorce rates because now many don't even bother with marriage. Relative divorce rates, as in the % of marriages ending in divorce, continue to rise.
>Younger generations are learning from the mistakes their parent's made pretty much.
No they aren't, they took everything wrong with the past 50 years and doubled down on it, but this time we have social media and internet porn.
>We currently live in the least promiscuous generation since the 1920's.
Pulled straight out of your ass, pic related.
>Teen pregnancy is down
The fact that it's now legal to kill your kid, coupled with the ubiquity of cheap birth control is far more responsible for the decline than people actually bothering to control themselves.
>STD transmission is down
Same thing. It's a shame they aren't more lethal or virulent.
>so is the average number of sexual partners
The mean has dipped slightly compared with the recent past, but it is still far above what should be accepted.
Just an insight I got from a book:
We are back to the "free love/sex" that existed in the hunter/gatherer societies until the neolithic revolution (~11000 BC).
But now: the man doesn't have to worry about growing a child from another man (DNA tests).
the woman doesn't have to worry about the risks of dying due to the pregnancy (advanced medicine).
And contraceptive methods.
So we are back to the pre-monogamic ages, one man can satisfy many women. Ugly/poor/poor genes people have less chance of having sex.
>Literally Hitler
More like Literally no one listens to this retard lmao just leave
>>I would just feel depressed jacking off to someone I'm never going to see or talk to. How is this fun?
I don't know what you're talking about first I only saw Alexis Texas through a screen not IRL and I'll get to see her again and again on demand whenever I want while you get to have sex IRL one time so your standart is higher but you're not gonna get to see that person again and now you're stuck with porn lmao sucks to suck
What I'm saying is if you're going to have sex IRL make sure your partner stays so you don't have to go through that painful "lack of" process again. Idiot
Looks like we've got a degenerate on the line.
What, does the presence of such sources bother you?
More like Literally Liar or Literally MakesShitUp. All his meme graphs are unsourced or unverifiable.
>Pulled straight out of your ass
Says he, as he pulls a graph straight out of his ass. That graph goes back to 1910. Why do they say they use data from 1989 onwards? Institute for Family Studies is literally a crackpot site where everything is made up. They don't even use GSS or NSFG data despite claiming they do.
Why do you lie so much? All studies show the number of sexual partners has decreased steadily, divorce rates have decreased, virginities lost later. This has been going on for at least one generation.
Probably, but I want to put to rest my own expectations of masculinity. I believe living a fulfilling life is more important than banging girls everyy weekend but I still want to be able to say, "I did it once." Maybe if I could do it once, I could figure out how to do it more
>All his meme graphs are unsourced or unverifiable.
It's fascinating how the human mind can create and maintain such all-encompassing delusions. I would be genuinely surprised if you actually bothered to check even one of those sources, since that would break the reality you've constructed for yourself where everything that you don't like is a lie.
> All studies show the number of sexual partners has decreased steadily, divorce rates have decreased, virginities lost later. This has been going on for at least one generation.
Sexual partners decreased since the late 90s, relative divorce rates have increased since then. Which in no way contradicts what I said--go into any historically relevant timeframe (i.e. more than a couple decades) and there is a complete dearth of sexual morality at present.
It's like saying things were peaceful in 1944 London because it wasn't being pummeled as much as during the blitz. Thanks for the tip, dipshit, but they're still getting bombed.
Lastly, I'm still pretty much the only guy here who ever bothers posting any sources whatsoever. You say "all the studies", but the entire "hedonist corpus" of sources from you lot would add up to, probably, a pair of articles (which say exactly what I do) and a blog post from Psychology Today.
Literally none of your sources have ever been legit. You only post from ultraconservative think tank blogs.
>as he pulls a graph straight out of his ass.
It's called linking to a source.
>That graph goes back to 1910. Why do they say they use data from 1989 onwards?
It's by decade of birth, genius. It says so in the goddamn title.
> Institute for Family Studies is literally a crackpot site where everything is made up
"Not settled science", right? It's a bloody joke, how quickly your supposed rationality melts away when something triggers the cognitive dissonance. You're free to see the results yourself, but then again it's far preferable to simply call unpleasant information fake--after all, looking at it yourself risks yet more mental trauma of being wrong.
>They don't even use GSS or NSFG data despite claiming they do.
Given that the data is publicly available (compliant to US privacy law for individuals outside of research), one of the best ways to shoot yourself in the foot is to hold a culturally unpopular opinion (i.e. saying anything against the dickwaving mongoloids like those infesting this board) and then fucking make shit up about it when anyone who hates you can look up the data and prove them wrong.
>ultraconservative
>NSFG
Blow it out your ass, fuckwit. Whatever site has the data (because let's face it, the leftists here would have zero inclination to popularize something against their dogma) is irrelevant to the data itself. Go ahead and "cherry pick" your sources showing how people have all of a sudden decided to become paragons of virtue in chastity in a bold rebellion against the rank, open debauchery of Victorian society. If all I have are so-called extremist ramblings, surely you must have mountains of reason behind you? The fact is, however, that you don't. That's why all you wastes of oxygen can ever do is fling around ad hominem, because if you adhered to actual argumentation you wouldn't have anything to argue by virtue of having already lost.
Cringe and bluepilled
this but unironically
You have never posted anything from NSFG. It's tiring when every post you make is full of lies.
Source? Don't say GSS unless you can point out an exact table from GSS.
He's right you know. That graph purposefully omits 90s and 00s because it would destroy your narrative.
Accusing another of a lie does not reward you with truth. I presume you know this, if not consciously then by instinct--all you care about is proving to yourself why you don't need to take into account any harmful information. I've linked directly to the NSFG on multiple occassions, but invariably with you faggots you're uninterested in the source regardless of its form; all you want is a convenient excuse to dismiss it. I can run all the hoops in the world, it won't make you think anything besides what you already do (maybe that's a bit much to assume, though, that you are in fact thinking).
>"I'll ask for something I won't be convinced by in the hopes that he won't post it, then I'll win"
Oh, please. Here, go hog wild:
gssdataexplorer.norc.org
Bear in mind that the microdata is something that you can't see without specific permissions, since it would violate US privacy law. And before you whine about that, refer to my last post: there are far more people out there who would fight tooth and nail to defend promiscuity than to condemn it, so any significant player falsifying this would be handing them a victory on a silver platter when they can easily look up the same data.
And since I've been so kind as to show you the exact source you asked me for (although you really didn't need it), I'll ask for you to give me those sources of your own. That is, if you aren't still exploring your own colon.
>That graph purposefully omits 90s and 00s because it would destroy your narrative.
How? I'm not debating that they have a slightly lower rate of promiscuity than the immediately preceding generation--that's my entire point, retard. That it's utterly meaningless to describe a statistical blip in long-term trends as anything other than that. My "narrative" is exactly what has been shown, nothing more and nothing less.
Feels good on my pp
bretty much this. It's pleasure-seeking. I don't like it and never have. The only time it has an appeal to me was when I was in high school and a virgin.
You literally admitted that you have no data for 90s and 00s despite earlier claiming you do. Walking sack of lies and contradictions.
>microdata
Oo boy. Here he goes again. He always uses this word when people point out the legit sources do not contain any of the data used in his graphs. It means he is trying to come up with a scenario where those graphs use data not publicly available that is somehow magical and contains everything his graphs have.
1. Describe this microdata, what it contains, and how it would be available. From gss in their words, not your ass. Showing that it exists and is available.
2. Describe how nifs uses this microdata and why they got access to it. In their words, not yours.
Am I missing something? I only see the number of female partners there per survey year, not any breakdown by birth decade.
>sex is more pleasurable than masturbation
Maybe for u for me its just kinda the same sensation
Lmao they need the constant validation from others since they can’t find value in themselves other than offering sex. How pathetic, sad and miserable.
Yep, that's how most gays are.
Makes sense
I should've specified.
The oldest millenials are starting to reach their late 30s.
This would be people born in the early to mid 80s
And generally people who participate in casual sex. They’re self worth is derived from how others perceive them, and cannot build their own image other than giving sex to people in order to feel “powerful”, “in control”, “worthy”, “loved” etc’.
No, people who have occasional casual sex are pretty normal. It's the raging sex haters who are mentally ill and have self esteem problems.
Hilarious how sex crazed people seem to verbally attack people who have healthy sex lives within long term relationships and prefer not jumping from bed to bed. Amazing how people like you fail to conprehend how is it possible to enjoy sex without involving numerous people to validate themselves. Have fun lying to your future serious partner about your count, since it obviously reflects poorly on character.
Amazing how the "muh pure virgin" crowd thinks that everyone who has sex outside of marriage is a filthy degenerate. Were you molested as a kid or why do you hate sex so much?
You know when people tell you "sex isnt a big deal" Mr Incel OP?
Yeah, it's not a big deal. That means you can have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, however you want, so long as its consensual.
If you're incapable of forming a temporary bond with another human being in the ideal way that you are biologically programmed to do, you're probably just a brainlet. In pre-civilization times men would have casual sex their entire lives to produce as many offspring as possible. This is what we are built to do.
Sometimes girls don't feel ready to date again, for whatever reason, but they also feel like they're gonna die unless they get some dick soon. Sometimes girls find themselves on the bus, staring at sleepy businessmen slumped over in their seats a little too hard, and realize they're acting creepy. Sometimes casual sex is a release valve that buys you 3 months protection from becoming a weird deprived sleazebag
Even when I masturbate I usually masturbate to one women over and over again in my head.
>It means he is trying to come up with a scenario where those graphs use data not publicly available that is somehow magical and contains everything his graphs have.
>Describe this microdata, what it contains, and how it would be available.
For Christ's sake. You know you can simply google this, right?
Here, troglodyte--I know you're utterly incapable of independent thought, so I did the thinking for you:
en.wikipedia.org
>"microdata is information at the level of individual respondents."
>" some statistical organizations allow access to microdata for research purposes. Controls are generally imposed to limit the risk that this data may be abused or lead to loss of privacy. For example, the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series requires researchers to implement security measures, avoid redistribution of microdata, use microdata only for noncommercial research/education purposes, and not make any attempt to identify the individuals recorded."
As for your setting of all these arbitrary conditions (how dare I use a term defined in basic statistics), I'm downright sick of indulging your bullshit when it is clear to anyone with half a dozen brain cells that you have zero interest in actually learning from the data, you just want to be able to walk away having dismissed it.
Wait, don't tell me:
>"That's because you don't have it! Ha, I knew I was right!"
Wrong.
cdc.gov
>"In addition to the 2015-2017 NSFG public-use data files, researchers may access two additional types of restricted-use data files available only through the NCHS or Census Research Data Centers (RDCs)."
>"Restricted-use analytic variables: The analytic variables available in this file were suppressed or modified on the public-use data files to further protect the identity and confidentiality of the survey respondents."
I never claimed I did, retard. That is by year of birth, and when you are looking at median LIFETIME partners it is not going to help anyone when you are either interviewing actual children or people barely out of university. That would strongly push the data downwards and give an inaccurate long-term picture.
>lies and contradictions
Point one of them out, just one. If you want to dogpile people for lying, go after the ones consistently fighting for dear life to avoid taking a source seriously. I'm ashamed to share a species with you.
>Describe how nifs uses this microdata and why they got access to it. In their words, not yours.
They're a registered organization that got access to the data for research purposes, it's not hard. Microdata is as mentioned previously a definitional term in statistics, and the borderline illiterate, drooling retards like you are not the target audience of researchers.
Oh, and here's something from your fellow travellers in idiocy (again, you can see for yourself with a simple google search; you only demand I spoonfeed you because you don't actually want an answer, so inevitably you'll pick something else to whine about):
mediabiasfactcheck.com
>"In review, the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) reports on and researches the role of marriage on the health of children and society. Most information on this website is rooted in fact and is well sourced. There is little use of loaded language, however story selection favors the conservative view of traditional marriage."
None of which is surprising for a group with that focus. So much for being a den of crackpots, which as I recall was either your claim or that of another sack of shit here. It's hard to tell the difference.
That's what microdata is--you can find the year of birth data in the same site, but to associate individual responses (i.e. for research) is the definition of microdata.