Casual sex

[Darkeagle6]

Snip

Okay, this deserves a response because it brings new information about the previous post and because it's clearly not written by an idiot. To summarize my position, my post had nothing to do with the fact that you don't like casual sex. In fact, the words "I think sex should be special. Not save-yourself-for-marriage special, but more of a decision than, "Hey, you're pretty, let's do it."" are words I could have written if I'd been asked what I personally felt about sex. My biggest problem was that what you had written was pretty much submerged in sexist subtext. Whether or not you intended it to be may be another question, but there's no denying that such was the effect of your words.

Calling a girl "easy" or "promiscuous" is, as you've pointed out, not any different than calling her a "slut". It's still shaming a girl for her sexuality. I don't think calling anyone a "chaste nun" is a compliment (not anymore than an insult), so I don't know how you got that idea from my post. I'm not trying to say the girl was chaste, or even that what she was doing was responsible if it's exactly as you describe it; here I'm mainly denouncing the use of such words.

I should also like to note that my comment about the hug you mentioned was in reaction your attributing you reaction solely on her sexual habits. Refusing to hug a girl (or a guy for that matter) because you consider them lazy, irresponsible, impolite, and all around a terrible person doesn't make you an ass, it makes you honest.

About the whole alpha male thing: I may have expressed myself poorly if you think I'm calling you an "aggressive, territorial, testosterone-guzzling dingbat ". That is an extremely stereotypical representation of the idea of "alpha male", but while it's still very present in the common mindset (generally in a less caricatured form), it's not the only way people like to use to evaluate their "worth as a man." The manliness-related ideal of "scoring with girls" doesn't just apply to casual sex and/or having sex with as many girls as possible. It also applies to claiming a woman's sexuality that no other man has managed to claim; in this mentality choosing/making love to a girl who's "been had" by (many) other men before you somehow lowers your own worth. And again, this kind of rhetoric removes the woman and her experiences from the equation and makes it about the men (I think the phrase "dick waving competition" is at its most accurate here).

Now, considering the things you've said in your own post, I'm not going to go and accuse you of thinking along the very lines I just described, because it sounds like this isn't the issue for you. But fact remains that using such rhetoric (from using the word slut to the phrase "gets around" and everything in between and beyond) expresses sexist ideas even if they're not intended. Slut, even if its usage changes over the years and people start calling men that too, will never be a gender-neutral term. It always carries that woman-shaming connotation with it. And its use always continues to propagate (and validate) the discriminatory ideas behind it, regardless of intent (which, incidentally, is the reason why everyone needs to stop using the word "gay" as an insult).

But again, the issue here doesn't seem to be purely (or at all) gender-centered. Rather, it's about making judgements on people's own conceptions of their bodies.

See, I was interested to notice that we have a very similar attitude to sex. Where we differ in our attitudes is that I strongly believe that you're wrong in assuming that all people who have casual sex will also view sex with a close partner within a strong intimate relationship as "casual". Insisting otherwise is defining other people's experiences for them, something which relates to the sexism topic discussed above (but isn't limited to sexism, or any discrimination for that matter).

To basically re-iterate the point I made in my previous post: Of course, you're perfectly allowed to think what you want of sexuality, of what people should and shouldn't do with it. You're also allowed to decide you don't want to have a partner who as participated in casual sex, no matter how "wrong" that criteria may appear to others. No one can take that away from you, and no one should call you prude, prig, goody-two-shoes, or puritan. But people will have differing conceptions of sexuality and of what it means to respect your own body. To judge them and shame them, to insult them for that, to assume things about them because of it, is being an ass. You're not bothered by people being an ass to you? Good! All the better for you. Why be an ass yourself?

 

[sumanoskae]

Emotionally, psychologically, we are wired to mate for life. If you take a partner for any length of time, sex with that person becomes associated with the relationship itself. Sleeping around only muddles this and leads to urges conflicting with emotional ties. People often end up feeling cheated even when there was no verbal "you and only you" agreement.

Not to disagree, I'm just confused, but... Aren't we wired NOT to mate for life. the divorce rate is like 40% isn't it?, and that's only people who got married.

And to my knowledge, one of the monkey species most closely related to humans are Bonobos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

And divorce always hurts everyone involved. Breaking the relationship causes pain. Anything that causes pain like that is not normal. If we were wired to leave each other, that doesn't mean we would never separate, it means we get together in the first place and the separation is as painful as losing a limb. Metaphorically of course, I don't want a random link to orangutans thrown my way next.

"Anything that causes pain like that is not normal"

Pain is an essential part of life, just like joy. Life is up and down, people need pain in order to recognize happiness.

Is childbirth unnatural?, is death unnatural?.

And not all divorce causes pain, sometimes people need to separate, that's why they get a divorce. A lot of the hassle that goes into divorce, like custody battles, is only a problem because we place so much value on marriage. Having an infected limb removed is also painful, but that doesn't mean it wasn't for the best.

We were born with the ability to feel pain, it's one of the most natural things in the world.

Nature isn't here for our convince, we were not born for everlasting joy. To often people forget about the parts of nature that displease them. Famine, pestilence, death, extinction. Survival of the fittest is the face of evolution. Somewhere, an antelope is being eaten by a lion, it's nature, but that thought doesn't make the antelope any more content.

You seriously miss my point. If you get stabbed, is it natural that you got stabbed? You feel pain so you can know to escape something that may damage or kill you. Pain itself is not the ill here, but most causes of pain are the result of damage, which is never a positive. Childbirth is an exception because a woman's body is designed to pass the child, but I am not designed to get stabbed or gored. My point in using the term "natural" is being mocked then when you claim that since pain exists in nature it is normal and therefor ignorable.

I never said all things that cause pain are natural, only that pain is natural

I never said pain was positive, rather that nature was not always pleasing

I never said pain should be ignored, it exists so that it can't

I'm not arguing over weather divorce or monogamy are pleasant, only weather they would occur in the natural world(I assume this means a world untouched by man, which doesn't make sense, as humans are just as much part of this world, and their actions thus natural as anything else, but that's another debate entirely).

And yes, killing is natural to, what do you think our canines are for?.

"Pain itself is not the ill here, but most causes of pain are the result of damage, which is never a positive" You said that as if it were in opposition, what I said is that pain is natural, not positive. It seems like your making a connection between what is "Good" and what is "Natural", when the two things can operate completely independently of eachother. If you were to assume that pain and nature could not exist together, you would condemn all predatory species, as well as species with self destructive tendencies, such as Black Widow Spires or Praying Mantises, as unnatural. An argument could also be made, that since our bodies are built with the ability to sustain life in other creatures trough consumption, that we in fact were built to die, but built to live long enough to reproduce. But the problem with that is that I used the word "Built", we weren't "Built", we occurred. We're a random collection of particles that have formed into what we are by chance. There's nothing that says we're designed without flaws, or inconstancy.

People want love, sex, comfort, food and pride, they go wherever they can find them, and do whatever they must to get them. I'd say that's human nature in a nutshell. Sometimes strange things happen to people and they find these things in strange places, or don't want them at all. Other times, but rarely, people find one person who can supply some these things more then anyone else, and even rarer occasions that person can do so for their entire life. Everyone wants to find this person, but few ever do. When they do, we call it love.

Marriage is a result of people wanting to think that everyone can... Well... over the years it's also been used as prettier name for slave trade or a political bargaining chip, but people with positive outlooks on matrimony look at in the way I described.

So we're not really wired for either one I suppose.

 

[sumanoskae]

Emotionally, psychologically, we are wired to mate for life. If you take a partner for any length of time, sex with that person becomes associated with the relationship itself. Sleeping around only muddles this and leads to urges conflicting with emotional ties. People often end up feeling cheated even when there was no verbal "you and only you" agreement.

Not to disagree, I'm just confused, but... Aren't we wired NOT to mate for life. the divorce rate is like 40% isn't it?, and that's only people who got married.

And to my knowledge, one of the monkey species most closely related to humans are Bonobos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

The divorce rate is high due to cultural and personal factors.

We are pressured to find mates. This pressure continues regardless of whether we are ready, or willing, or well suited to making and keeping the commitment of marriage. I'm not the only one whose mother pestered them for years on the subject.

There is a fallacy propagated in our culture that we can get something for nothing. Some guys think marriage is steak on the table every night and sex when they want it - they don't stop to consider that they might have to pretend to like the in-laws, or support their spouses' plans. Some women think a husband is a responsible, bacon-bringing, stable pillar of support to which they can cling, and onto which they can pour all their emotional troubles - without considering that they themselves might have to be responsible, loving, and stable in return. This isn't everyone, of course, but it's certainly a trap we can fall into.

Once we have something, we get lazy about maintaining it. It becomes ours, unquestionably, like property. We buy a sofa, and that sofa is ours. For a while, we take good care of it. After a while we don't care if we spill coffee and cigarette ash on it. Eventually it's fit only to be left at the curb on Heavy Pick-up Day. The only reason it's still around is we're too lazy to get rid of it. I hate to trivialize marriage by comparing it to a sofa, but marriage requires care and maintenance if we want it to be comfortable to sit there.

The institution of marriage is weaker than it used to be. Being unmarried was very nearly a sin in times past. Divorce used to carry a terrible stigma. As divorce rates have slowly gone up, the stigma has slowly gone down. The institution has weakened, resulting in -- you guessed it -- more divorces.

I could go on but I'm up past my bedtime. It doesn't matter whether we're genetically predisposed towards monogamy or not. The capacity for thought introduces too many other variables.

Who's to say that what happened in the past wasn't more unnatural, and what we have now isn't closer to our nature.

If our nature can't be seen in our culture and private lives, then where can it be seen?

 

[sumanoskae]

Emotionally, psychologically, we are wired to mate for life. If you take a partner for any length of time, sex with that person becomes associated with the relationship itself. Sleeping around only muddles this and leads to urges conflicting with emotional ties. People often end up feeling cheated even when there was no verbal "you and only you" agreement.

Not to disagree, I'm just confused, but... Aren't we wired NOT to mate for life. the divorce rate is like 40% isn't it?, and that's only people who got married.

And to my knowledge, one of the monkey species most closely related to humans are Bonobos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Overall, we've had the tendency to mate for life. Genetically, we are meant to made for life, or at least close to those lines. It's all in the size of our testies.

Not even qualified to comment on our evolutionary cousins.

But life used to be like 25-30 years, who's to say we didn't just mate for long enough to die married, or that we didn't just do what we do now and sleep around anyway. There were times when the very concept of divorce was simply not done, so people might have just not had the choice.

Is there really any undisputed scientific fact that says we're wired to mate for life, or that we ever even did?

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Sex is fun. If you and someone else are up for it (and single or their partner's cool with it) then why not? Especially as, in this modern world of contraception, we can pretty much rule out pregnancy.

 

[Helliontheory]

Mixed opinion.

On the positive side, I've a fuckbud in his forties- very experienced, open and a right horny bugger. However, he knows what I can and can't do and I know the same of him- On the rare occasions that we meet, it's a great thing.

On the negative side, an entire sex-life built around a high sex-drive and internet-only meet-ups... You have to be, I think, rather strong internally to deal with it long-term. Locally, (Northern Ireland) there are plenty of nice folks but the abiding worry about the community 'finding out' and interfering (with words or fists) plus the presiding pressure from gay-centric advertising, (Gaydar: What you want, when you want it) emphasising casual sex all-day, every-day seems to enforce the "F*ck and be done with it" mentality to a degree that every casual encounter is frought with disappointments aplenty. Even if the sex is good.

Yikes.

It's... all-consuming sometimes. I didn't want to put any sort of scud on this topic because, frankly, some folks seem to be having excellent sex-lives without long-term partners and that's great!

Point? Take a pause and consider before your sex-drive makes a decision for you, (odd as that sounds) less sex but better sex. In theory

Oh and f*cking use condoms + lube + plenty of foreplay gawdsdamnit!

 

[SextusMaximus]

Giving it out to just everyone is kinda shameful...you just don't give it all up at once

Why, exactly?

Also, I prefer the chase over the catch

Why bother catching at all then?

Why? Well, where's the fun in that? You don't play a video game to beat the last boss. You don't watch a football match just to see the winning goal. You don't eat at a fancy restaurant just to fill your stomach.

As for why bother catching...well, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I don't even need the catch to get the satisfaction.

You're a little too determined to encourage reckless fucking. I see no problem with it, but I would not have sex with a girl who was too easy. What was it Stephen King said? Something about people that have sex purely for the paltry squirt at the end, ignoring the whole lovemaking in between.

I'd like to point out that your metaphors don't make sense. In that the restaurants, the football matches and the video games ARE the catch (collectively) are they not?

 

[Raideh]

Cleaned.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

Prudishness is a sign of a weak mind. I say bad sex, coupled with redundant conservative "moral" values, is ultimately responsible for a massive amount of the evil in the world. So clearly I am pro casual sex. Moreover, I am anti-marriage. It's an obsolete sacrament now, we should move on, rather than attempt to hold the people you apparently love hostage via a legal document. If you choose to be monogamous, that's your choice, you don't need a state sanctioned contract to do so. To me, that's the least romantic thing in the world.

Well, not all marriages are recognized by the state. Some marriages are unofficial.

Think of it more as a decision for a couple to formally profess their undying love for each other.

 

[kittii-chan 300]

I'd be fine with it if it was one of my freins that i actually like and that they asked first and I'd had at least a glass of wine.

 

[Thyunda]

Giving it out to just everyone is kinda shameful...you just don't give it all up at once

Why, exactly?

Also, I prefer the chase over the catch

Why bother catching at all then?

Why? Well, where's the fun in that? You don't play a video game to beat the last boss. You don't watch a football match just to see the winning goal. You don't eat at a fancy restaurant just to fill your stomach.

As for why bother catching...well, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I don't even need the catch to get the satisfaction.

You're a little too determined to encourage reckless fucking. I see no problem with it, but I would not have sex with a girl who was too easy. What was it Stephen King said? Something about people that have sex purely for the paltry squirt at the end, ignoring the whole lovemaking in between.

I'd like to point out that your metaphors don't make sense. In that the restaurants, the football matches and the video games ARE the catch (collectively) are they not?

I'm saying there's more to it than JUST sex.
In the restaurant, the chase is the variety of exotic foods you're eating, when bread and water would do just fine to fill the stomach.
In a football match, the catch is the win your team takes home. The chase is the whole game preceding that win.
In a video game, the final act is the catch. Everything you have worked for in the game is all wrapped up with the finishing scenes.

That's how the best sex is - something you have worked for. A well-deserved reward. Sex itself can be pretty dull. If you just do it for the sex, it's essentially mutual masturbation.

 

[Xanthious]

Why yes, I'd love some casual sex thank you for offering . . . . . oh wait, nevermind.

 

[rokkolpo]

Emotionally, psychologically, we are wired to mate for life. If you take a partner for any length of time, sex with that person becomes associated with the relationship itself. Sleeping around only muddles this and leads to urges conflicting with emotional ties. People often end up feeling cheated even when there was no verbal "you and only you" agreement.

Not to disagree, I'm just confused, but... Aren't we wired NOT to mate for life. the divorce rate is like 40% isn't it?, and that's only people who got married.

Life used to be only 25(ish) years long.
I think that says something in the argument

Wouldn't it make sense, that if life was that short, it would benefit the species to reproduce as much as possible?.

Not really, since human kids take a long time before they are truly ready for life.
The baby period is far too long and unsafe to not have (at least) two people looking after you.

 

[sumanoskae]

Emotionally, psychologically, we are wired to mate for life. If you take a partner for any length of time, sex with that person becomes associated with the relationship itself. Sleeping around only muddles this and leads to urges conflicting with emotional ties. People often end up feeling cheated even when there was no verbal "you and only you" agreement.

Not to disagree, I'm just confused, but... Aren't we wired NOT to mate for life. the divorce rate is like 40% isn't it?, and that's only people who got married.

Life used to be only 25(ish) years long.
I think that says something in the argument

Wouldn't it make sense, that if life was that short, it would benefit the species to reproduce as much as possible?.

Not really, since human kids take a long time before they are truly ready for life.
The baby period is far too long and unsafe to not have (at least) two people looking after you.

They used to send kids off to war when they were like 13

 

[rokkolpo]

Emotionally, psychologically, we are wired to mate for life. If you take a partner for any length of time, sex with that person becomes associated with the relationship itself. Sleeping around only muddles this and leads to urges conflicting with emotional ties. People often end up feeling cheated even when there was no verbal "you and only you" agreement.

Not to disagree, I'm just confused, but... Aren't we wired NOT to mate for life. the divorce rate is like 40% isn't it?, and that's only people who got married.

Life used to be only 25(ish) years long.
I think that says something in the argument

Wouldn't it make sense, that if life was that short, it would benefit the species to reproduce as much as possible?.

Not really, since human kids take a long time before they are truly ready for life.
The baby period is far too long and unsafe to not have (at least) two people looking after you.

They used to send kids off to war when they were like 13

13 years takes a long time for a kid to learn to protect himself when most animals can do it in months.
It's because we ultimately develop to be more intelligent.
It takes (much) more time for us to get past being useless crying prey.

Up to 13 we are effectively useless in that day and age.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

I feel uncomfortable with the idea of having a friends with benefits relationship, but hey, it's your body and your life.

Sex, to me, is a very very emotionally intimate thing (on top of the physical intimacy). When I have sex with someone, it's a sign of how much I love them.

Spoiler: tmi here, you've been warned. it is relevant though

Part of this might be that I'm into mild BDSM. The physical component of such a relationship is all about trusting your partner. If I'm letting you tie me down and use me, it's a sure bet that it's because I trust you deeply and love you. Casual sex does not lead me to that same place.

 

[ultrachicken]

I don't have a problem with promiscuity, but I'm not a fan of the whole "fuck buddies" deal. When you shag someone, chemicals are released in the brain that begin to make you form an attachment with your buddy, even if you only initially started shagging them because you like their genitals. The more you have intercourse, the stronger these feelings become. That's why I don't think long term casual sex exists, and should not be attempted.