Friend Pressuring Me to Have Sex

[Royston]

As a side note, I've never really understood this attitude of why the 'first time', has to be special, or with someone you really care about and blah blah blah. The point is, it's your 'first time', so it's more than likely to be a confused, nervous affair, that will leave you wondering what all the fuss is about.

 

It reminds me of statements such as 'your wedding day should be the happiest day of your life.' Really good days just happen, they're seldom something you can organise or arrange (within reason), the same goes for sex.

[mooeypoo]

I think it's a personal matter, Snail. I personally feel my body is an intimate thing I share only with people I trust. I'm also the type of person that (while I *am* very social), I'm not hugging/kissing everyone when meeting them, unlike my other friends who do. It's a personal preference.

 

Seeing that this is how I am, it's no surprise I felt like my sexual experience (first, second and 99th) would be with someone I *WANT* to share my body with. I have absolutely not an ounce of criticism for people who act differently or believe otherwise (I do hope that they have *safe* sex, but that's regardless of how many times who you do it with).

 

I don't think it's about specifically the 'first time'; this issue is more about the romantic chick-flick movies out there speaking of this magical love bond that makes first-time-sex this awesomely amazing feat. In reality, it's awkward and (at laest in my experience) not hardly as enjoyable as, say, the third time, where you actually know what you're doing (or, well, have a bit more experience).

 

But that doesn't mean that I think people should 'jump straight in' and start practicing towards the real thing. If this was swimming, maybe. Since this is an intimate issue with the body, it really depends on the person. If you don't feel comfortable, don't do it.

 

 

I would say, though, that I think sex and intimacy is also not something that should be delayed until a wedding. If a couple is dating for however long, this is one thing they *should* experience together *before* they are bound together for life. That's my opinion about it, at least.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I am an 18-year-old female first-year law student in Australia. I am a fairly lonely student with only one friend. This friend tells me that I am very pretty and so she wants to set me up on a blind date so I can get a boyfriend and lose my virginity.

 

I don't want to go on a blind date nor do I want to have sex because I don't feel ready and because I don't feel comfortable.

 

And no one has any right to tell you otherwise. Now if it is just shyness, fear, or embarrassment that is holding you back, then your friend might have a point. Even so, a blind date does not seem like the right way to do this.

 

Her suggesting a blind date, suggests to me that you also don't date much if at all. It certainly wouldn't hurt you to go on a date.

 

If what is holding you back is that that you want to remain virgin for "the one", then you might be in for a bit of a disappointment. Sure, plenty of guys would appreciate you having stayed a virgin just for them. On the other hand, if you make a mistake on who you think is "the one" and end up breaking up, you'll probably resent it all the more.

[Royston]

It's a personal preference.

 

Which I respect, I was merely questioning the motivation of delaying sex, i.e encounters later on in life, will overshadow any teenage fumblings. Perhaps I should of emphasized 'side note' at the beginning of my post, as I was specifically speaking of this 'first time.' Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone should rush in (there's no reason to), but...

 

this issue is more about the romantic chick-flick movies out there speaking of this magical love bond that makes first-time-sex this awesomely amazing feat.

 

...amongst a plethora of other misguided reasons why such a thing should be delayed.

 

If you don't feel comfortable, don't do it.

 

Well, it's highly unlikely anyone will feel comfortable doing something for the first time, especially if it's surrounded by some social stigma. Perhaps I'm being a typical 'bloke' about this subject, and as much as I recognise levels of intimacy, that doesn't mean I find certain hang ups, as a little daft. But as you said, it's personal preference.

[Severian]

Seeing that this is how I am, it's no surprise I felt like my sexual experience (first, second and 99th) would be with someone I *WANT* to share my body with.

 

I don't think anyone was suggesting that she should have sex against her will. I was simply saying that I think it is a mistake to wait for your one-true-love before having sex for the first time.

 

Incidentally, I did wait, and I regret it.

[mooeypoo]

Yeah I didn't say you did, I just wanted to clarify my position about 'waiting'. I don't believe in waiting for the sake of waiting, I believe in waiting until you feel ready for it, hence, not doing it against your will.

 

I agree with what you said, I just wanted to clarify my own position in light of it.

[Rickdog]

I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. Christianity comes from Christ and God, not the 'Holy Church'. Just because the 'Holy Church' says something doesn't make it true.

 

So, as you are saying it, you are denying what Jesus wished by creating the catholic church as only one church, by naming and putting Peter as the visible apostolic head of all his Church, the pilar of the Holly Church. You make yourself a very "good" christian by denying him.

 

For all I care, at least I consider myself as somebody full of doubts related to the matter, and not a true Christian. You simply deny him (Jesus), and therefore are denying God himself by that action.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So, as you are saying it, you are denying what Jesus wished by creating the catholic church as only one church, by naming and putting Peter as the visible apostolic head of all his Church, the pilar of the Holly Church. You make yourself a very "good" christian by denying him.

 

The Biblical roots of this claim are pretty scant. Historically, the "Catholic" church only gained preference over the numerous other Christian groups by the 200s or 300s AD. After Jesus's death, there were numerous different groups, and the fight over which one became orthodox took several centuries.

 

In any case, papal infallibility has only been invoked once, and it wasn't on the issue of sex. So there's nothing wrong with doubting the church, even if you're Catholic.

[mooeypoo]

After Jesus's death, there were numerous different groups, and the fight over which one became orthodox took several centuries.

... understatement.. "After Jesus' Death" would be at least 70 years after, seeing as that's the earliest date of the earliest writing about Jesus, if he existed (which historians are no longer so certain).

 

I think the better point to raise, though, is more about "Which Christianity?" seeing as while Severian's Christianity prefers Jesus and God, there are other streams who go by the Holy Church or the Pope or Prophets or Joseph Smith.

 

~moo

[Severian]

So, as you are saying it, you are denying what Jesus wished by creating the catholic church as only one church

 

Yes, I do deny this, and I am quite sure this was never Jesus' intention.

[John Cuthber]

Is it just me whose first thought on reading the title of the thread was; define "friend"?

 

Incidentally since neither God nor Jesus is a member of this forum, they can't give advice here. It doesn't seem appropriate for others to give advice on their behalf.

They are, according to those who believe in them, perfectly capable of making their opinions known independently of this website.

[mooeypoo]

Also please remember this *isn't* the religion forum. Let's keep religious discussions out of it.

[Mr Skeptic]

You say that like we don't get pretty law students looking for advice about sex from us science geeks all the time.

 

Ah, but how many of them stick around to listen to the discussion on whether Jesus founded the Catholic church or not?

[Phi for All]

Ah, but how many of them stick around to listen to the discussion on whether Jesus founded the Catholic church or not?

ROFL. Focus, people, this is why the virgins go for the hunky carpenter types instead of the scholars.

[JohnB]

What I find curious is that it's been two days since she posted and none of our members from Oz have proposed to her yet.

I'm married. And my sheep gets jealous. (I understand the Kiwis allow polygamy.)

 

As a side note, I've never really understood this attitude of why the 'first time', has to be special, or with someone you really care about and blah blah blah. The point is, it's your 'first time', so it's more than likely to be a confused, nervous affair, that will leave you wondering what all the fuss is about.

 

In our lives we do many things for the "first time". Sex is one of the few that occur when we are old enough to appreciate it. It's stepping into uncharted waters, with all the nerves and everything else.No matter how good or bad, anytime after that is not an "unknown".

 

Like the first time skydiving. You really don't know what's going to happen, how it will feel to step out into the air. Every time after that you have an idea of what it will feel like. So the "first time" is special and will never come again.

 

How many people still fondly remember their first car? It's the same thing.

 

Once that is realised, then there is nothing wrong with trying to make any "first time" special. Because it is.

 

I have to side with Mooeypoo 100%. Sex is a very intimate thing. It's even more intimate for a woman. (For reasons that shouldn't need to be spelt out) If Westgirl is uncomfortable, then nobody has the right to pressure her into it.

 

If she didn't feel comfortable sunbathing topless, then nobody has the right to attempt to force her to. I fail to see why pressuring somebody to have sex is any different.

 

I didn't get anything about religion or "one true love" from the OP. The woman doesn't feel comfortable. As far as I can see, that ends it right there. It's her choice as to when to have sex. Pressure, even from well meaning friends is wrong.

 

It's her body and her choice. Game over.

[Icefire]

I'm going to try to take a psychiatrist approach to this question.

The way our society works is that we are taught to always cover our genitalia from others, which gives some of us because we feel it prevents others from judging our looks by the appearance of our genitalia. Having sex requires us to reveal what we have never revealed before and allowing it to be judged by someone else. If one does this and then is judged negatively, it could cause this person to feel shamed about his or her body and otherwise making him or her unhappy. Of course this all depends on how confident you are with your body. If you feel great in your body and would stroll around naked if it wasn't for the fact that you would get arrested, then you would have no problem getting down and dirty. But if you would die of embarrassment if your towel slipped in a dormitory, then you should wait for somebody that makes you feel confident in yourself.

If you feel that you need to have sex though, then the best way is with someone you trust and will wait for you to be comfortable before continuing.

[westgirl]

Thanks for everyone's advice. I've made many excuses and have gotten out of the date for now, although I still meet this friend regularly and I am always afraid she will bring up the topic.

 

I might talk about some of the excuses I used. I was having dinner with this friend who wanted to set me up on a blind date. She made the argument that I should have sex because I haven't tried it before, because it can be a lot of fun, and because I should "live a little." I asked my friend whether she has ever walked naked through a crowded street before. She said no. I asked her why and she said she doesn't feel comfortable with that. I then said, "That's how I am with dating. If you think I should date because I haven't tried it before and I could potentially get a lot out of it (even though I'm uncomfortable with it) then you should walk through a crowded street naked for those exact same reasons."

 

Before we do anything we must estimate whether it will benefit us, and we should do only what we esimate will benefit us. Nobody can try everything, so we are forced to filter only those activities we think will benefit us.

 

Furthermore, I think that trying things we are uncomfortable with because it may benefit us is not a good idea. Suppose a serial killer argued to you that murder gives much pleasure and that you should try it because you have not ever tried it before but may get a lot of pleasure from it. Would you experiment with murder just to test whether you may enjoy it? I wouldn't. I would estimate whether I would benefit by imagining myself trying out the activity. I estimate based on my imagining myself trying the activity that I would feel very uncomfortable killing someone and this is my rationale for not doing it.

 

Does everyone agree with the soundness of my arguments?

 

Thanks everyone!

[JohnB]

Sounds fair and reasonable to me.

 

It's your life and your choice.

[Chriton]

No! I do not think your Rationale about killing or being naked is the same as having sex.

Sexuallity is inherent in the human race, we are all sexual animals, if Sex is Abhorent to you then you have problems.

Having intercourse or thinking about having intercourse is normal, but chosing who you have intercourse with is importent.

I, like others in this forum have doubts about your sincerity and truthfulness...What are you after?

[Genecks]

Have sex when you feel right and ready and when it is presented to you.

 

 

Until then, tell people that you are not interested in a physical relationship or short-term sexual encounters. Also, it might be wise to stop telling people you're a virgin unless they start questioning your ethics, morality, religiousity, etc.. aka: your character is put into question and you want to use it to support your character.

 

Sexual behavior and destruction are inherent behaviors.

Be glad that people in society do not really need to kill and destroy to live.

For what I've learned, using one's sexuality (male or female) in a safe way is a good way to gain resources to live a decent life.

 

The psychological consequences? That definitely relates to the individual.

 

There are definitely psychological consequences to having sex with another person.

It can give a person a higher sense of confidence. Make a person desire it more. Make a person less depressed, less unfocused, etc..

It can have good and negative side effects.

 

I believe people should be having sex more often. That's what I think. People shouldn't really put too much of a psychological attachment to it as something of incredible worth (except in order to reproduce). Conflicts can come about when people put too much psychological attachment to it. People need to have sex more often; and I think society has become sexually restricted. No-strings attached sex can be useful. Then again, there a lot of STDs going around these days, which may be another reason sexual repression affects many people.

 

I've heard a lot of arguments, and I think prostitution needs to be legalized in America.

I think it would solve a lot of issues. People need to fulfill certain psychological stages in life: Sex is one of them.

I could argue that a person is ultimately a child (despite how mature) until completing that task.

 

I'm not saying that you should go out and have sex tonight.

But I'm saying that it might release you any psychological issues that woe you from not engaging in the act.

Being released from such a prison can be a good thing.

 

Me? I'm a moral person. Probably brainwashed as such, thus incurring a variety of neuroses and doubts as whether or not to live a life of chaos or peace. But I understand that there are good outcomes from doing things that a person don't usually do.

 

You ever argue with a priest?

Try it.

You ever walk past a priest with his hand extended and not shake his hand after a sermon he gave?

Try it.

 

It will have effects on the psyche.

 

In terms of the serial killer thing?

It's just not the same. Murder is illegal in the civilian world.

...

Edited April 4, 2010 by Genecks

[Phi for All]

I was having dinner with this friend who wanted to set me up on a blind date. She made the argument that I should have sex because I haven't tried it before, because it can be a lot of fun, and because I should "live a little." I asked my friend whether she has ever walked naked through a crowded street before. She said no. I asked her why and she said she doesn't feel comfortable with that. I then said, "That's how I am with dating. If you think I should date because I haven't tried it before and I could potentially get a lot out of it (even though I'm uncomfortable with it) then you should walk through a crowded street naked for those exact same reasons."

You moved the goalposts here. Is it dating you've never tried before, or sex? You should certainly be able to go out on a date but not end up having sex. Dating is a great way to get to know someone, and it doesn't have to be all formal and awkward. What do you like to do? Museums, movies, concerts, plays, restaurants, all these places are great with another person, learning what interests you share.

 

I can understand not wanting to be set up with someone just to have sex because you've never tried it, but dating someone is the best way to get to know whether they are worthy of getting more intimate with. Dating is just getting to know someone, to know if you like them, and if they like you. Dating is just human interaction, so it's not really like walking down a crowded street naked. Dating is more like walking down a crowded street talking about yourself, and asking questions about the person you're with.

 

You should give dating a chance. Nudity optional.

[padren]

Thanks for everyone's advice. I've made many excuses and have gotten out of the date for now, although I still meet this friend regularly and I am always afraid she will bring up the topic.

This is actually the best argument you could make in my mind - tell her that you enjoy her company but dread the frequency with which she brings this up, and you'd feel a lot more at ease if she would just accept you have a different set of priorities right now, and give it a rest for a while.

I might talk about some of the excuses I used. I was having dinner with this friend who wanted to set me up on a blind date. She made the argument that I should have sex because I haven't tried it before, because it can be a lot of fun, and because I should "live a little." I asked my friend whether she has ever walked naked through a crowded street before. She said no. I asked her why and she said she doesn't feel comfortable with that. I then said, "That's how I am with dating. If you think I should date because I haven't tried it before and I could potentially get a lot out of it (even though I'm uncomfortable with it) then you should walk through a crowded street naked for those exact same reasons."

What was her retort to this, out of curiosity?

Before we do anything we must estimate whether it will benefit us, and we should do only what we esimate will benefit us. Nobody can try everything, so we are forced to filter only those activities we think will benefit us.

I don't entirely agree with this - I think it's good to try things just to try something new and it's easy to be surprised. The real issue is not benefit but risk, both to oneself and others. If something feels sketchy because of just a gut feeling or a well reasoned assessment, or the commitment of too many resources then by all means pass on it.

 

It's okay to try things and find out whether unexpected benefits can pop up as long as you are comfortable with it. This topic of course, is not one you feel comfortable with it seems appropriate to reject it for that reason.

Furthermore, I think that trying things we are uncomfortable with because it may benefit us is not a good idea. Suppose a serial killer argued to you that murder gives much pleasure and that you should try it because you have not ever tried it before but may get a lot of pleasure from it. Would you experiment with murder just to test whether you may enjoy it? I wouldn't. I would estimate whether I would benefit by imagining myself trying out the activity. I estimate based on my imagining myself trying the activity that I would feel very uncomfortable killing someone and this is my rationale for not doing it.

 

Does everyone agree with the soundness of my arguments?

 

Thanks everyone!

 

I have to disagree with the serial killer analogy. It's not about the fact something "could end up being pleasurable" but the likely consequences. You probably wouldn't like the consequences of giving serial killing a try. You don't believe you'd like the consequences of having sex just for the sake of loosing your virginity either, so that's a pretty good reason not to.

 

 

 

One thing to remember though, is not to get ahead of yourself. Being open to going on a date (regardless of your friend's ultimate agenda) is not going to set you up on a one way fast track to uncomfortable sex. It won't even mean having to go on a date. If you are comfortable with "being open to the possibility of a date" then you can tell her you'll consider dating, but you'll tell her when someone catches your eye and not to try to hook you up. The idea about the study group is good too, not to "swing a date" but for the academic reasons and to broaden your social circle.

[ewmon]

I absolutely abhor stories of fathers who throw their little kids into deep water to teach them how to swim, and this is what I’m hearing about this “friend”. This isn’t about a woman with a boyfriend who’s not sure about taking it to the next level, and it isn’t about a woman who dates but hasn’t found anyone special. This “friend” does not care about a natural or a comfortable progression, and she certainly doesn’t care about this woman as a person.

 

I have lived a long time (ugh!), and I can say that I have never met anyone in a happy, permanent relationship who kicked themselves for not having dated, slept around, etc earlier in life. I sincerely believe that, when you meet the right person for you, and something clicks big time, and everything falls into place, then the past and all the previous apprehensions and lonely nights simply vanish.

 

I think bars, where everyone tries to impress and make time, are the last place to meet sober people under honest circumstances. If you’re not the type to meet someone at church/temple/mosque/supermarkets?/etc (which might not be as good as it sounds), then there’s other ways to noncommittally meet and get to know sincere young people. Google “single volunteers” combined with the name of a large city near you. These nonprofits mostly involve young people and college students, who are “nice” enough that they want to help others and to help society and maybe, just maybe, meet someone of interest to them. You typically meet on a Saturday or Sunday as a group in a public location accessible by public transportation, volunteer for a few hours, and then enjoy everyone’s company over lunch or dinner at a nearby restaurant. Working with someone is a really good way to get to know their personality. These nonprofits tend to offer a wide variety of volunteer opportunities, so you’re bound to find something that interests you. (I’m sorry if this is considered spam.)