Raphaëll

• Raphaëll 3 Dec 2020 18:10 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Ok I understand. So maybe I should switch for another word than produce? Just as plain as “people who have more estrogen than testosterone in their blood”, or something of the likes?

• Raphaëll 3 Dec 2020 5:09 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: DaystarEld’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Glad you enjoyed it, and it’s good to meet another straight-edge here (although you don’t seem to fully identify with the term, which is ok! I’m not sure I do either).

  I heard of the strategy of masturbating before going on a date before, but I mostly heard it as an advice to be less nervous (somehow). Your advice seems sensible, although I’m not sure how effective it would be, in that it would release a ton of hormones that make you happy right before meeting someone, and could alter your vision of them. I really don’t know haha, just saying there are probably a lot of unknowns unknowns here (and I’m not sure how much they’re worth figuring out).

• Raphaëll 3 Dec 2020 5:03 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Agreed. And a trans man who doesn’t take hormone would also be affected similarly. I think saying man/​woman or male/​female is a bit inaccurate in this context because of that (also because not everyone means the same thing when they say male/​female; some refer to a biological reality, so having certain genitalia, and some give it the same meaning as man and woman, so a gender identity). I prefer to use a term that is both accurate and unambiguous (+ that encompasses the other realities I mentioned in my former comment, like intersex people and such), even if that means a lengthier sentence.

• Raphaëll 3 Dec 2020 4:58 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Zack_M_Davis’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  I didn’t know about these numbers for PCOS, that’s good to know.

  I’m note sure what you mean by specific intersex condition; afaik, intersex people can have all sorts of combinations of sex attributes (they can have a vagina and XY chromosomes for instance, or a vagina and internal testicles, and so on; one of those variables would be their level of hormones). Another specific reason someone with a vagina would produce predominantly testosterone is if they’re a trans man on hormone replacement therapy.

  What I mean by predominantly is that they would produce more testosterone than estrogen (or the other way around); since cis women are more sensitive to the effects of hormones produced when having sex because they produce more estrogen, is it my understanding that the same would be true of someone who produces predominantly estrogen, regardless of their gender.

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 18:48 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Rupert’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Interesting point. I do think there are risks in avoiding physical intimacy altogether, for vastly different reasons. Now, trying to navigate when it’s harmful to have physical intimacy and when it’s not is the hard part!

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 18:39 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: SurvivalBias’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Yes that’s what it means. It’s specifically addressed in my blogpost (based on 3 studies, referred in the footnotes):

  “Which is where this hormone’s double-edged sword emerges. Excellent recent work has shown that oxytocin does indeed promote pro-social behavior, but crucially, only toward in-group members. In contrast, when dealing with out-group members or strangers, oxytocin’s effects are the opposite. In such settings, the hormone decreases trust, and enhances envy and gloating for the successes and failures, respectively, of the out-group member. Moreover, the hormone makes people more pre-emptively aggressive to out-group members, and enhances unconscious biases toward them. In other words, a hormone touted for its capacity to enhance pro-sociality does no such thing. Instead, what it does is worsen Us/​Them dichotomies, enhancing in-group parochialism as well as outgroup xenophobia.”

  And I do say sex can be potentially harmful to true selfhood, but it’s not my main point/​concern at all.

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 18:31 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Holly_Elmore’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  My only question is, why privilege your “natural state” so much?

  I don’t; I value my sober state, and I already addressed why at the beginning of the article. I don’t really see anything to add here. And anyway, having sex is one of the most natural things, so trying to moderate it wouldn’t really fall under a naturalistic fallacy.

  For example, why would I think my anger at my partner is more authentic than how I would feel if we had sex?

  This was pretty much addressed in the blogpost already, with the 4 key points I extracted from the article on toxic relationships. Sex can kind of wirehead you to feel close to someone, regardless of if they’re a good partner or not. I do feel like this cocktail of hormones could tie me into a relationship that I wouldn’t actually want if I stopped having sex with this person for a while and really thought about us—but I agree that “authenticity” is a vague, subjective concept, and you make of it what you will.

  If your partner hurt you or was disrespectful to you in anyway, you’d be right to feel anger at them. I know some people use sex as a band-aid in their relationship, but that never addresses the underlying issues and doesn’t seem to work in the long run.

  I think saying “everything in moderation” is a really unsatisfying answer, but it’s true here. Sex can warp your judgment but it’s also a need for most people.

  I do agree here. I never once mention in my text that people should abstain from sex completely, and I far from want that for myself. I specifically say “We might also want to refrain from sex in some situations”. The last 3-4 paragraphs point to idea of how one could decide to navigate their sex life if they want to continue having sex but avoid some of the drawbacks of it.

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 18:19 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Interesting point. The article I link to talks more specifically about how these hormones interact with oestrogen, hence why I thought it was more relevant than blood levels. Thanks for specifying that.

  Otherwise, talking about producing predominantly oestrogen is a more accurate way to talk about what I’m referring to than saying male/​female. I know it sounds odd to some, but I don’t mind. The thing is that some people have a penis (so someone you might call a male) and produce predominantly oestrogen, and some people have a vagina (so someone you might call a female) and produce predominantly testosterone. Be it because they’re trans and on hrt, or because they’re a cis woman and have PCOS, or because they’re intersex, or for other reasons. I prefer to be accurate with my language so there’s no confusion.

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 18:13 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: remizidae’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Good thing I only date unusual people :P I mean, people “take a break” all the time, I don’t see why this kind of break in particular would be more alarming.

  Also, this was meant more as a rough example of a policy that could be taken from this knowledge than anything; you can use it any way you see fit (including doing nothing about it of course).

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 4:22 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: Evan_Gaensbauer’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  I wrote this blogpost but I did not post this article on Facebook myself, so I have no idea what were the motivations behind those decisions. I would be curious too see what they said!

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 1:28 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: Jay’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Thanks, that was an interesting reply :)

• Raphaëll 24 Nov 2020 0:40 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: SurvivalBias’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  I think your comment shows me I’ve failed to clearly communicate my intent with this post. So to me, not drinking and not doing drugs help me being my true self(which is a big topic on its own, and one I don’t wish to explain here), but not having sex does not—I was mostly discussing this for the context of how I stumbled upon the idea that there might be benefits to not having sex, in that it’s an idea frequently discussed within the straight-edge community. In the end, I do not believe having sex prevents you too much from being your true self (apart from the discovery of the in-group /​ out-group mentality that is amplified by it). I know other straight-edge people say it also has to do with self-control, and it is true that sex can be addictive to some (or make you interact differently to people), which are both factors that I’d say prevent you from being your true self, but I’m not super sensitive to those two arguments → except when it comes to toxic relationships, which was one of the core interests of this blogpost. And making a big place to someone who doesn’t actually deserve to be there can be dangerous in the most extreme cases, and a waste of time at best. I wanna spend time with people because they bring me value, not because I’m addicted to them (and yes, sex can definitely be a value, but when it comes with a toxic relationship, or with time together outside of the sexual encounters that we’d rather put somewhere else and that we just spend in the hopes of having sex, I think it might not be worth the cost).

• Raphaëll 23 Nov 2020 23:32 UTC

  5 points

  0

  in reply to: Mati_Roy’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  Hey! So I think my post went over identity preservation and independence (although not explicitly); it did not mention the impacts on productivity and mental sharpness, and I’d be curious to hear what you have to say about it (although I have my intuitions about what can be said of both).

• Raphaëll 23 Nov 2020 22:58 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: alo’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  I agree with the statement that it’s kind of arbitrary where you draw the line, and honestly it’s up to anyone to determine where they do. I wouldn’t advice everyone to refrain from drinking or doing drugs, I’ve just personally decided it was not something I’d like to experience. However, as much as I think this observation is fair, the rest of your comment makes me feel like you either didn’t read my blog post to the end to write this the way you did, or completely distorted what I said—I see a lot of slippery slopes here. (But also, if anyone wanna commit to any of the things you said because it makes them feel like they’re closer to being their more authentic selves, so be it).

  I understand sex can be a sensitive topic, especially since some cultures are really sex-negative; however, this post is not advising to abstaining from sex at all. I’m personally polyamorous and have several romantic /​ sex partners (not that I need to tell that about myself to justify where I come from, but thought it might help understanding how not extreme I am in this proposition at all). It was only meant to serve as food for thought to reflect on how someone wants to approach their physical intimacy (which could also be cuddle parties or the likes, doesn’t have to be sexual).

  Knowing in greater details the impacts that physical intimacy have on someone, we’re in a better position to take decisions about it (and yes, that can include doing nothing about it and going on with our lives). I’m personally a bit afraid of committing to romantic relationships (and have worked through that fear) based on anecdotical experiences (mostly from people around me), and I’m super interested in the topic of toxic relationships, and how to avoid them and get out of them. It does empower me to know a bit more about the mechanisms behind them, and as said in the last paragraphs of my post, even though I’ll continue to have sex, it does make me reevaluate when I’ll have sex with them. I think that’s the most important takeaway; when sex is the most susceptible to impair your judgment (such as during a tense period with a partner).

  But regardless, even if you don’t change anything based on all this info, I still think it’s interesting to learn about :) The studies on the fostering of in-group /​ out-group mentality was particularly new and interesting to me!

• Raphaëll 23 Nov 2020 22:29 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: remizidae’s comment on: Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy

  For sure, it’s possible to be in love without physical contact, and I’ve personally experienced it. However, based on the article I shared about toxic relationships (which mostly focused on the effects of hormones) and my own sexual experiences, I’d say without being completely avoided, these hormones are produced in far less quantity without sex, and so their effects are mitigated.

  I do agree that being slower to commit leads to avoid the failure you point out, and I personally have some rules as to how long I wait for some steps in a relationship (which are kind of arbitrary and open to changes). But I thing that’s a generally pretty agreed-upon belief, and so I preferred to focus on impacts less talked about in this post.

Straight-edge Warn­ing Against Phys­i­cal Intimacy