Casual sex

[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.