Casual sex

[Ferrious]

Been there, done that, but it was born out of a previous long-term relationship so a lot of the "complicated" issues didn't arise - we'd already been as intimate as we could get, and it wasn't going to ever spark those feelings again (while it ended pretty harshly, we patched that up enough to be friends, but never enough to be together again).

Still good friends to this day, though obviously as I'm engaged and have a son now the "with benefits" bit is long in the past. Safe to say, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Psychologically it's pretty bad for you to be starved of sex. It's a basic part of the human condition. If a friend offered to cook me dinner and I was hungry, I would eat. If a friend offered to come to bed with me, and I was in the mood, I would oblige (baring commitments - no cheating people!).

That line has to be maintained though - if some friends can't deal with the separation of friend and lover, it can get very messy, very fast. Seen that, it wasn't nice to witness.

 

[loc978]

Casual sex is best, in my opinion... but I've never really correlated emotional attachment with sex. I get attached to people I hang out with and have interests in common with. If one of those interests happens to be mutual attraction and sex, great. If not, no biggie.

 

[RaisonD'etre]

Forgive me, but there isn't. You still used the word 'Female'. That said, I hope you found a favourable answer in the rest of my post.

Kindly.
// A cat.

I found the rest of your reply favourable, yes. But I still dare say that the presence of the article "a" does matter. "A female" is a noun, whereas "female" can be an adjective. In saying "I am female and blah blah" I meant to indicate my sex.

In case you simply think the term female itself is not good as it sounds like something that is used only when speaking of animals, then I suppose I fancy humans to be animals.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I think it's fine. The only problem I can see with it is that while you share an intimate bond with another person, either you or the other person in question could start to develop further feelings. Any sign of this, break it off or take it further. Do never stay at that base if you feel you or your sex partner is getting attached. It's a recipe for disaster, and a world of hurt.

It may sound like it doesn't happen that much, but it sure bloody does. So yeah, make sure you're careful with it. And use protection!

 

[tobi the good boy]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal laws.

EDIT: Laws not standards.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I've tried it two or three times and it never turned out good. So I guess I'm against it but, I know other people can do it and feel awesome so to each their own.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Sleeping around is considered by some, and partially me, to be a sign of moral weakness.

What is morally weak about it?

 

[honestdiscussioner]

I'm open-minded. The only thing though is that my family is strongly Catholic and my brother's a priest, so we gotta make sure a child doesn't bounce out or they'll try to brow-beat me into a non-casual relationship.

Nah, they'll be relieved you weren't using something as evil as condoms!

 

[Sephychu]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal standards.

Ah, then it is our definitions of valid that are at a discrepancy. You say valid is backed by belief and possession of view, I say valid is past that, and beneficial to society as a whole, and adherent to societal standards.
As relative to this conversation, societal standards such as 'Don't judge me, I'll live my life how I like'.

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

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.

I agree with pretty much all of that, and personally I choose to be monogamous, however I don't view marriage exactly the same way you do. The marriage itself should be a celebration of your love, closer to a party than some regal ceremony. As for the document, it's basically just this sweet deal heterosexual couples have worked out with the government to get tax benefits n such. It should always be the relationship that's important, the piece of paper can fuck right off, but I don't think passing up on having your monogamous relationship and getting tax breaks and benefits from it too is necessarily a bad thing.

If you were to ask me -which you didn't but I'm going to tell you anyway- this sweet deal should apply to homosexual couples as well. And on top of that, I don't see anything wrong with a polyamorous relationship having a legal document giving them tax breaks too. Triangles are the most stable geometric shape, after all.

Casual sex is A-OK as long as everyone involved is observant and respectful of each other's feelings. As far as the "weak mind" thing that's come up on both sides in this thread, I'd view anyone with an overly serious view of sex as being highly insecure. Relax, sit back, let someone in you/on you and just laugh, talk, cuddle, bang, tie each other to the bed, do what you like. I'd rather swap stories and reflect meaningfully on my relationships than obsess over how other people are doing the deed.

 

[Dystopia]

I generally have zero respect for people that do that, as I find they frequently have little respect for their own bodies either.

To each, their own, but I have very little interest in spending time with people like that.

I find this kind of offensive. Sex is fun and if you can find a single, STD-free person to have it with, no strings attached, then why not go for it? Personally I don't understand prudish people, why do they make such a big deal out of it?

 

[Neo10101]

I would be perfectly fine with having a friend with benefits, some people are really sketchy about sex and always blow it out of proportion. I think sometimes you just need a good night of sex with no strings attached.

 

[tobi the good boy]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal standards.

Ah, then it is our definitions of valid that are at a discrepancy. You say valid is backed by belief and possession of view, I say valid is past that, and beneficial to society as a whole, and adherent to societal standards.
As relative to this conversation, societal standards such as 'Don't judge me, I'll live my life how I like'.

I edited that bit as quickly as I could to 'Laws'

But yes this is where our issue stems from. I can't really say I agree with your definition but I can say it seems like it would be more difficult to have neutral discussion with.

I must admit I do find that definition of something as "Valid" being a bit skewed. by the sounds of things it like saying "It doesn't exist without falling within the confines of what I perceive."

 

[Sephychu]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal standards.

Ah, then it is our definitions of valid that are at a discrepancy. You say valid is backed by belief and possession of view, I say valid is past that, and beneficial to society as a whole, and adherent to societal standards.
As relative to this conversation, societal standards such as 'Don't judge me, I'll live my life how I like'.

I edited that bit as quickly as I could to 'Laws'

But yes this is where our issue stems from. I can't really say I agree with your definition but I can say it seems like it would be more difficult to have neutral discussion with.

I must admit I do find that definition of something as "Valid" being a bit skewed. by the sounds of things it like saying "It doesn't exist without falling within the confines of what I perceive."

In the almighty words of Rummy. "There are known knowns and known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns."

Neutral discussions are extremely dull. Proper discussions [Like this one that we are having right now], come from people with differing viewpoints sitting down and going over their merits. There are other parts of them too, but you get the idea. Neutrality is not the ideal position to be in.

The point I am making here is that I think opinions that are obviously deconstructive to society or even just personal relationships are not arbitrarily 'as good' as any other opinion out there. To me that doesn't make any sense.

 

[MordinSolus]

If they want to, they can go ahead. If I did that, I'd have to make sure I'm not going to get HIV or something.

 

[Uszi]

Meh. I don't think anyone should be judged for promiscuity, especially because there's a serious double standard in American culture in regards to men and women and they're sex lives. I've been in a committed relationship with someone who has had a slightly promiscuous past, and I figure as long as you're not cheating on me, who the fuck cares what you did before.

As far as sex with friends, I will be your friend if you will have sex with me.

 

[sarttan]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal standards.

Ah, then it is our definitions of valid that are at a discrepancy. You say valid is backed by belief and possession of view, I say valid is past that, and beneficial to society as a whole, and adherent to societal standards.
As relative to this conversation, societal standards such as 'Don't judge me, I'll live my life how I like'.

I edited that bit as quickly as I could to 'Laws'

But yes this is where our issue stems from. I can't really say I agree with your definition but I can say it seems like it would be more difficult to have neutral discussion with.

I must admit I do find that definition of something as "Valid" being a bit skewed. by the sounds of things it like saying "It doesn't exist without falling within the confines of what I perceive."

In the almighty words of Rummy. "There are known knowns and known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns."

Neutral discussions are extremely dull. Proper discussions [Like this one that we are having right now], come from people with differing viewpoints sitting down and going over their merits. There are other parts of them too, but you get the idea. Neutrality is not the ideal position to be in.

The point I am making here is that I think opinions that are obviously deconstructive to society or even just personal relationships are not arbitrarily 'as good' as any other opinion out there. To me that doesn't make any sense.

You both could debate this all day and still be nowhere near the forum topic. Just saying.

 

[sarttan]

If they want to, they can go ahead. If I did that, I'd have to make sure I'm not going to get HIV or something.

Same here, but I would be far more likely do it if we were together in a relationship.

 

[Sephychu]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal standards.

Ah, then it is our definitions of valid that are at a discrepancy. You say valid is backed by belief and possession of view, I say valid is past that, and beneficial to society as a whole, and adherent to societal standards.
As relative to this conversation, societal standards such as 'Don't judge me, I'll live my life how I like'.

I edited that bit as quickly as I could to 'Laws'

But yes this is where our issue stems from. I can't really say I agree with your definition but I can say it seems like it would be more difficult to have neutral discussion with.

I must admit I do find that definition of something as "Valid" being a bit skewed. by the sounds of things it like saying "It doesn't exist without falling within the confines of what I perceive."

In the almighty words of Rummy. "There are known knowns and known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns."

Neutral discussions are extremely dull. Proper discussions [Like this one that we are having right now], come from people with differing viewpoints sitting down and going over their merits. There are other parts of them too, but you get the idea. Neutrality is not the ideal position to be in.

The point I am making here is that I think opinions that are obviously deconstructive to society or even just personal relationships are not arbitrarily 'as good' as any other opinion out there. To me that doesn't make any sense.

You both could debate this all day and still be nowhere near the forum topic. Just saying.

Then debate we shall!

I jest. My day is over anyway. I have given my views, now I shall away to my chambers.

 

[tobi the good boy]

Myself? Not too hot on it. I'm an emotional wreck as it is, I think casual sex might drive me totally insane.

However, I'm far from judging other people over it. People wanna have sex, how the nuts is that my business? Go right ahead.
Those people who frown on it need to realise that it isn't their place to tell other people how to conduct their lives in that area.

However, if you are going to do it, shut up about it. I don't want you dumping all your self-made problems on me. You knew full well what you were getting into.

As much as I 100% agree with what you said, the OP asked for 'opinions' on the topic of casual sex so both sides of the spectrum are going to be heard with equal ground. telling them to be quiet because their opinion doesn't suit our own is not the way to approach this thread.

Well, maybe.
I guess I just think that there is such a thing as a bad opinion.
If I posted a thread asking for opinions on Hitler's actions throughout his life, you wouldn't say that his supporters had valid opinions, would you?
Yes, it's a far stronger example, but the principle scales, no?

Actually yes, their opinions would still be valid. They would be hate-filled and likely non-beneficial for society but they would still hold a belief and view with meaning thus providing them with validation.

As long as their is feeling and reason behind an opinion it is valid ... Actions however MUST adhere to societal standards.

Ah, then it is our definitions of valid that are at a discrepancy. You say valid is backed by belief and possession of view, I say valid is past that, and beneficial to society as a whole, and adherent to societal standards.
As relative to this conversation, societal standards such as 'Don't judge me, I'll live my life how I like'.

I edited that bit as quickly as I could to 'Laws'

But yes this is where our issue stems from. I can't really say I agree with your definition but I can say it seems like it would be more difficult to have neutral discussion with.

I must admit I do find that definition of something as "Valid" being a bit skewed. by the sounds of things it like saying "It doesn't exist without falling within the confines of what I perceive."

In the almighty words of Rummy. "There are known knowns and known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns."

Neutral discussions are extremely dull. Proper discussions [Like this one that we are having right now], come from people with differing viewpoints sitting down and going over their merits. There are other parts of them too, but you get the idea. Neutrality is not the ideal position to be in.

The point I am making here is that I think opinions that are obviously deconstructive to society or even just personal relationships are not arbitrarily 'as good' as any other opinion out there. To me that doesn't make any sense.

I understand what you mean but societies and their views can vary greatly. in ancient Aztec society flaying a man alive atop a stone pyramid was viewed as a cultural norm. This is why I can't agree with what you're saying. Because your basing it solely on the society you hail from, should the world end tomorrow and society reconstruct itself in a new visage that contradicts everything our now current state holds dear. Which opinion is more valid then?