# the hippy filosophy, yes or no?

Category: Dating and Relationships

## Post 1 by Unreleased Secrets (Zone BBS Addict) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 10:44:20

Hi to all,
I have been thinking a lot about this lately. I have been single for a while now, but I'm not looking for a relationship. Many people don't seem understand the fact that it is very beneficial, or at least I find it so, to live sexual experiences with different people. I'm not saying I am incapable of having a relationship; I've honestly never cheated on anyone but if I'm not with anyone I find that I'm free to do whatever I wish as long as it's clear that I don't want a relationship.
So what do you, both guys and girls, think about sharing and expressing love/lust without being in a relationship? As they say, love is like a glass door because you don't see it until you smack into it, but lost is like a wooden door with a big knob.

## Post 2 by DevilishAnthony (Just go on and agree with me. You know you want to.) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 14:33:59

I totally agree. As long as you're clear about your intentions, it's all good, especially if it's on some site like the zone, where lovers get passed around from day to day. Most people just want the excitement of a new partner, but are too ashamed to say it, so they fake the whole relationship. If you just come right out and say, "Hey, I think you're hot. Let's play." You don't have to figure out a way to get out of a relationship that you really didn't want to begin with.

## Post 3 by Unreleased Secrets (Zone BBS Addict) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 14:37:52

I completely agree with you. I'm saying this today because someone approached me today, after months of not talking to me, saying that she loved me in her own way and I was like ok? No, I don't want to start a relationship,but I'm willing to share this feeling as long as no strings between us are attached... she agrees, and 5 minutes later goes and says she's my gf? stop right there...

## Post 4 by DevilishAnthony (Just go on and agree with me. You know you want to.) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 14:42:56

That's a huge red flag right there. It would be a bit different if the two of you spend hours on the phone or Skype and really talked about deep intimate feelings and she began to realize that she had a crush on you, but to suddenly appear after several month and decide, over 5 minutes of texting, that she loved you... Na.

## Post 5 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 15:07:08

While I can definately remember and understand the feeling of excitement that comes from that initial contact, I think it's a shame to engage in such activity without the presence of feelings. Sexuality is an important part of human existence and should not be treated lightly, or casually. It's easy to say "as long as we're on the same page", but I seriously wonder how often that actually works. You asked for opppinions, and in a nut-shell, here's mine. This lifestyle seems to be all about the reward without the effort. It's like having a job, but not going to work because you just don't want to, then expecting to be paid for the day anyway. If you want casual sex, stick with your hand, because you never know when feelings (of one kind or another) will crop up in the other person. You might be able to turn off your emotional responses and be subject to your base instincts, but that girl you "share" those with might have other ideas.

## Post 6 by Unreleased Secrets (Zone BBS Addict) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 17:17:20

This is why I said that both parts should agree upon it before engaging in such activities. True, feelings might come up, but not only in the girl, but to the guy as well; it's a risk that some are willing to take and some aren't, i guess.

## Post 7 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 21:25:21

it certainly isn't my thing, but I wouldn't knock those who do enjoy it.

## Post 8 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 22:24:07

I'll say this (and get my flame shield up). Nothing good ever came from promiscuity.

## Post 9 by softy5310 (Fuzzy's best angel) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 23:02:12

I've never been the fling and nothing else type. I'd take a long-term relationship over just sex any day. But if what you want is just a fling and that's all the two of you want, I say go for it, more power to ya. Sure, feelings can always come up for either of you, but so long as you're clear about what you want from the start and are both ok with that, I'd think there would be less of a chance of that happening. i could be wrong though.
Take Care and good luck,
Dawnielle

## Post 10 by margorp (I've got the gold prolific poster award, now is there a gold cup for me?) on Sunday, 01-Apr-2012 23:54:09

I agree with this and say good for you. Freedome is a great thing and in enjoying that freedom, you actually begin to learn alot more about yourself and the opposite sex.

## Post 11 by OceanDream (An Ocean of Thoughts) on Monday, 02-Apr-2012 8:32:20

this can be risky, especially if one person develops feelings and doesn't tell the other, for fear of destroying what the two of you do have. But if you're sure you're on the same page from the start, to that I say: what's the value of life without a little risk?

## Post 12 by margorp (I've got the gold prolific poster award, now is there a gold cup for me?) on Monday, 02-Apr-2012 12:21:00

that's why you don't stick with the same person.

## Post 13 by crazy_cat (Just a crazy cat) on Monday, 02-Apr-2012 15:18:54

If developing feelings for someone you just met is considered to be a big red flag, then does that mean love at first sight does not exist?

## Post 14 by Unreleased Secrets (Zone BBS Addict) on Monday, 02-Apr-2012 15:23:45

No, that's not what I ment. It can happen, I guess.But you have to focus on it or you will miss it.

## Post 15 by OceanDream (An Ocean of Thoughts) on Monday, 02-Apr-2012 22:05:40

I don't know. personally, I think love at first sight is just a gimmick. Now, lust at first sight is definitely possible, but love goes a lot deeper than that. Just my opinion. I'm not saying lust can't turn into love, but it should take awhile. If you feel yourself falling in love, don't fight it, but don't let it blind you, either.

## Post 16 by Unreleased Secrets (Zone BBS Addict) on Tuesday, 03-Apr-2012 2:08:43

Of course it is different, we just often mistake it at the beginning. Just look at how easily relationships are breaking. People start relationships at the first week of having known each oher and that is a huge mistake. You need to know a person before starting a relationship with them.

## Post 17 by margorp (I've got the gold prolific poster award, now is there a gold cup for me?) on Tuesday, 03-Apr-2012 12:42:15

I don't by into this love at first sight stuff. I think people often confuse love with lust. Now, if nurtured, it can become love but now it's no longer love at first sight. I blame the romance novels for that one.

## Post 18 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Tuesday, 03-Apr-2012 13:24:12

I don't believe in love at first sight, either. people easily confuse it with lust.

## Post 19 by SilverLightning (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Wednesday, 04-Apr-2012 11:13:18

I'm a romantic. I completely believe in finding your soulmate, and having love at first sight. However, I don't think you'd recognize it instantaneously. I don't think you'd meet someone and be, "holy shit I love this person". I think its more that you meet someone, can't stop thinking about them, and have a feeling in your gut that they're the right person for you. I call that love at first sight.
I will admit though, it usually is just lust. Not that there is anything wrong with lust.

## Post 20 by forereel (Just posting.) on Friday, 06-Apr-2012 0:34:07

I don't believe in love at first sight. Love take much time to happen.
Love is not lust, or the need of someone in your lifeit comes after much time spent with that person. We can't know if we love someone we've not been with because that love is our perception of what they are when in fact that could be completely different.
Now as for sharing sex and the feelings I say as long as both persons are able to deal, than it can be great and a relaxing way to fall in love.
If you have experienced a person, or several people you than learn what you want and you'll be less likely to cheat when you do decide and the other person decides you are a match.
Personally I find I don't require someone to always be in my life day to day, but enjoy a date a few times a week.
Now with the free love comes some responsibility, in that you need to be sure you know something about the person and there sexual habits even if you are practicing safe sex. That one night stand as the hippie's learned can lead to much after pain, and medical issues.
Sex should be natural, but natural can be safe, and if you are having great and safe sex you are enjoying the fruits of life.

## Post 21 by margorp (I've got the gold prolific poster award, now is there a gold cup for me?) on Tuesday, 10-Apr-2012 13:49:12

Exactly, all verry well said.

## Post 22 by Lisa's Girl forever (Help me, I'm stuck to my chair!) on Monday, 16-Apr-2012 4:27:28

I'm in a long turm ..relationship. and i don't do the one night. stands.
that't isn't for me. no thanks.

## Post 23 by hi5 (I'm going for the prolific poster awards!) on Sunday, 13-May-2012 0:03:27

This is sort of like my topic on open relationships, right? There are so many conflicting feelings I have about it. I mean, there are wins and losses with the traditional way and nontraditional way. Think about it like this. Long term one on one relationships, well, almost everybody is use to doing it that way. You love, trust, and get comfortable with each other. No diseases, no sudden and/or unrequited feelings of love, just your good old happily ever after. I don't have to tell you that my previous discription isn't always the case. The most and sometimes least people will get out of a relationship is the comfort level. That's it. For better or worst, misery boardom, or both, you're use to this schmuk and you're just too damn scared/atached to ever leave. Ok? If you get the balls to leave something that was never good for you long, long after you should have, think of all the time, effort and heartache you had to spend and endure just to come to your senses. Its hard work, but I hand it to anyone who were/are successful with it and built beautiful thriving families. Now I read somewhere that in ancient egypt men and women alike were free to take as many lovers as they pleased before marriage. In fact, sex wasn't just a thing you did. It was spiritual lol, and necessary. If that's true, wouldn't some of us like to be there? If you weren't getting any, girls too, something was wrong with you! For this hooking up, it takes another kind of discapline that most of our selfish human kind can't aquire. That's selflessness. Emotional stability. One is still responsible for the character of person they choose to be with. You can never know what the other person has, for long or short term. In the end, you must let go of your cauciousness and put your trust in them. On one hand, someone might think you have no self control and want to screw everything under the sun with no consideration of what might happen to your partner. and one might also think that its a very selfish thing indeed to take away someone's freedom to do as they wish as long as it wasn't "Harming" anyone. That's harming, not hurting. Sometimes it needs to hurt for one to learn a lesson. Question for everyone, have you ever lusted for someone you know you could never carry on a long term relationship with? and for those of you who have been with your significant other for a while, have you reached the point where you don't have much sex at all? Do you find that despite that, you're actually still in love with them?

## Post 24 by forereel (Just posting.) on Sunday, 13-May-2012 17:59:42

Than on the other hand ask the women of Africa about these "one on one" relationships and no diseases?
They have been faithful, but the husbands?
If sex was taken out of the taboo in Africa many of the diseases, could be cured and the women would stop suffering, because they were cheated. Simple things like condoms could be widely used, and if you knew your husband was actually out you'd be safer.
Now in Egypt there was probably no diseases, at all, because it was a comunity thing, and if you don't add outsiders in to sex you can't catch anything.
It is all a matter of knowing your partners, and if need be testing before sex.
Sex is wholesome, and a basic drive. I really don't think people want to actually screw everthing that walks, or most don't, but many, if they admit it would like some variety, or if in a one on one variety within that relationship.
Love and sex should be divided. Great sex doesn't equal love, or vise versa. Great sex equals willingnes to share with your partner, and great love equals the same thing, but both are not the same.
Swingers understand this. They have variety, but it doesn't mean they don't love their spouses. ?

## Post 25 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Saturday, 19-May-2012 14:51:16

Interesting topic:
Can't say I ever tried it, the what we used to call unattached sex, or what now some call friends with benefits, or however you would term what you are describing.
But neither the man's typical like for this or the women's typical opposition is better or worse. The way women typically are about this stuff is as base, biological, and evolutionary as the way guys are.
It's just been made to be morally superior because of what it supports.
Women typically saying they want the relationship, or playing so-called hard to get, and all that, are acting just like their natural counterparts elsewhere in the animal kingdom: they are trying to secure the best possible nest environment for their offspring, at least on a biological level. Since human infants, and their mothers, need a lot of care and consideration, and both are extremely vulnerable while the infant is young, it makes the most evolutionary sense from a purely biological perspective that female humans and other animals whose offspring take a long time to develop, would have been favorably selected for their nest-finding abilities.
I admit, I have no experience to say one way or the other: I've been in only monogamous relationships, and have taken strides to permanently secure my own personal fidelity with fortitude. Since in part that counteracts human male biology, that would indicate I have made a choice.
So when human females opt for the monogamous exclusive relationship, and maybe even play hard to get in the process, they are not the so-called superiors they would have you or I believe, and we are not the lowlifes for our biology as they claim.
In fact, we males who opt for monogamy are countering our biology, and they who play the hard to get games, or play snooty superior, are actually just going along with theirs. Doing what's easiest for them, in the same way a "horn dog" does what is easiest for him. That's not a knock: just a bit of perspective.
And I wouldn't, if I were a young male engaging in this behavior, ever do it with a woman who ever wants to reproduce. After all, that will play into the equation. I'd say, steer clear unless she is one who absolutely does not want kids. Because, for very obvious biological reasons, if she ever wants kids, that will remain a factor in the equation. I'd also say, boys, if you're going to do this, pay a visit to Snip 'N' Tie Incorporated, someone who will honor your request without needing the consent of a woman. Then get a sworn affidavit saying you got the job done. And know that you could risk a lot: not just diseases which are bad enough, but you could risk 2/3 of your income to support someone you didn't want to be with long-term, plus child support, plus any assets you had. Most states in the U.S. don't require any real evidence that you are the father before they will charge you for child support. You just need to be the guy who's working and makes the most money, steady and predictable. I'd go so far as to say, most you run into who want to do your type of play probably would never consider doing what I describe. First, it only takes 1, be it 1 in a hundred or 1 in a thousand. And second, if she does reproduce, she is immediately at a personal economic and physical disadvantage, which is why most will try to secure the best possible partner before they reproduce. It makes sense why you will lose, and you will have the studio apartment while she has the house. In former times, people in her situation would have slowly starved and died, so obviously it's better for her and the child in particular, and the species in general, that child support mandates are what they are now. They speak to the vulnerability of any woman in that situation.
You will just need to take steps ahead of time to ensure it doesn't happen by you, and that if or when it happens by somebody poorer or with a less secure income, that you can legally demonstrate that you are sterile and could not have been the father. Perhaps a paternity test.

## Post 26 by forereel (Just posting.) on Saturday, 19-May-2012 16:17:34

Well the Hippies had a little different thought system. Both women and men were not interested in raising families, or anything of that sort at the time, but what is called free love.
The person you had free love with didn't have to be a friend with benefits, but a willing sexual partner.
The act was for pleasure strickly, and the person you had it with didn't belong to you, but could movve on, or be with another person at any time they wanted to.
This doesn't mean that some lasting and loving relationshiips didn't come about, and mostly they did offten, but the jealious factor was stripped from the sex.
Having sex with someone didn't give you any rights to them. What gave you rights was the willingness to allow you to have them. Sex didn't mean coupling, in the sense of we are boyfriend and girlfriend, but in the sense of we are providing each other with a need, a natural need for pleasure and giving.
Your legal wife or husband could have sex with another person and you'd not leave him or her over the sex.
Sex was to be shared, given freely, and the smarter of the group took steps to insure no children came about because of the sex, Also disease.
Not all were smart however.
Did I discribe this correctly, or can others add to it?

## Post 27 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Saturday, 19-May-2012 16:58:47

Sounds like you described the ideal correctly, at least.
I honestly don't think it could ever truly work until sterilization was more widespread, and there was no group at all who took the victim status. In part, removing the intense vulnerability that biological reproduction renders human females is probably the cause and would have to no longer be.
Otherwise, the guys will ultimately be resented. Resentment is often the only tool, or the most expedient tool, of the least competent and most vulnerable among us. It does not show strength or power, it shows weakness and vulnerability.
So until that vunerability is removed, I think what you have is a game of Russian Rulette. So you may spin the revolver's chamber and continue to click the trigger with no ill effects, and feel more and more invincible with each passing ssuccess, but it's not real success unless the other factors are removed.
Just my thoughts.

## Post 28 by forereel (Just posting.) on Saturday, 19-May-2012 17:12:16

I personally have never met a person that honestly practices this that is bitter over it. When they decide to have a studdy relationship they make great lovers, because they are easy with themselves and know exactly what they want to do. Men and women both.

## Post 29 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Saturday, 19-May-2012 18:06:20

Perhaps it will be the next stage in human evolution? When incubating a fetus is done artificially in a chamber, and women no longer are burdened with this affair. Women will be far happier when they no longer must be the bearers of the offspring. Don't believe me? Listen while those who've given birth terrify the new and young / expectant ones with the most horrific and lurid birthing stories. And then leave, leaving the young one pale and shaken. This is their regular practice, boys. You may think that they do the sisterly version of the hoorah-you-can-make-it-we-all-did, type motivational approach, but they quite literally terrify expectant ones beyond all proportions, in ways you would never dream of doing. I've had several close to me experience this, and it's all you can nearly do to pick them up and carry them out of there.
Perhaps once caring for the unborn fetus is no longer tied to biology, which may happen within the next fifty years, you will see more embracing the lifestyle you present. One thing humans do is innovate their way into things ahead of time, so possibly you and others like you, and to some extent the hippies, have created the next viable version of relationships.
Who really knows? Or could know?

## Post 30 by forereel (Just posting.) on Sunday, 20-May-2012 13:18:02

Okay, so for people that really can except the choice they made and have issues with it later on in life this type of lifestyle iis not for them.