Casual sex

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by faithsdaddy

I think if you're ♥♥♥*ed up, you will make bad choices. As a couple of examples, someone who had a loveless childhood may have many partners in a vain attempt to find love. Or someone who was brought up to believe sex is bad, may be fearful and end up unable to enjoy it at all and have few or no partners.

If you're mentally healthy and you like lots or little sex with many or few partners- then that's pretty cool. If you're careful, the health risks are fairly low.

So there you have it... since most people are messed up, any extremes of sexual behaviour will often be a physical manifestation of this.

Come on, let's 'ave it. I'll take ya all at once

I agree. Any behavior taken to the extreme is most likely the sign of an unhealthy belief.

What I think is that lost of people sign an intention (need for a partner) to a behavior (sleeping around) that is not necessarily there.
I'm not arguing that everybody who sleeps around does so for the right reasons (having fun, feeling comfortable with their own sexuality, being confident). I'm arguing that not everybody who sleeps around does so for the wrong reasons (which I seem to read more and more in sexual oriented threads).

It seems that there are some people who consider casual sex (meaning for me; sex without a romantic relationship or intention for a romantic relationship) a bad decision for everybody, all the time, regardless of their intentions.

[beast]

Originally Posted by rei

I disagree. His theory is about supply, demand and access.

I think the double standard is left over from a time when women were viewed as property. So your property was less valuable if it was, er, second hand. You were marrying to get a virgin back then.

While there is an element of value in his theory it misses the objectification which I think is residually expressed in that double standard.

I'm with you here.

But, you know what? I'm a proud feminist, and I don't totally disagree with James's assessment, either. I've never met a woman who has trouble finding sex, if she's putting herself out there. It doesn't matter who she is; sex is easier for women to come by, we're just that sexy and desirable! I do think it's a lot harder for guys to get it, so it makes sense that those who are successful are lauded for it. No reason for women to be slut-shamed, but it makes sense to me.

lookcloser, I'm with you. I am waaaaaaaaay too paranoid about STDs to go around and have lots of casual sex, but I am a bit envious of those who do.

[pyrogen]

Originally Posted by beast

I'm with you here.

But, you know what? I'm a proud feminist, and I don't totally disagree with James's assessment, either. I've never met a woman who has trouble finding sex, if she's putting herself out there. It doesn't matter who she is; sex is easier for women to come by, we're just that sexy and desirable! I do think it's a lot harder for guys to get it, so it makes sense that those who are successful are lauded for it. No reason for women to be slut-shamed, but it makes sense to me.

lookcloser, I'm with you. I am waaaaaaaaay too paranoid about STDs to go around and have lots of casual sex, but I am a bit envious of those who do.

Casual sex is so easy for women to find precisely because most women don't want it. People can usually find the one thing they're not really looking for. I have known plenty of women who DO want casual sex, who are plenty attractive, who have had times where they couldn't find it if *they* paid for it.

This ties in with my Murphy's Law of Love idea.

Whatever it is that you don't want - rest assured, there's plenty of it to go around.

[ChrisGinsburg]

I sometimes can't help but to just laugh at how over complicated we tend to make everything. Seriously, people just judge everything...constantly. Casual sex is just another scape goat for judgment and passing judgment. It's a collective taboo just like farting in a crowded elevator. I can analyze why people judge farting in an elevator from every angle like a CSI investigator but what it all comes down to is that it's a collective norm to not fart in elevators which happens to be shared by the majority of society.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Well, I enjoyed it back in the day. Less likely to do such things now that I have a child. I wouldn't mind a FWB situation, but I have never really seen them work IRL in the longterm in my many years of monkeying around.

Also, STDs give me the heebie jeebies. Herpes? HPV which causes cervical cancer? yeah, condoms don't protect against that...Oh I don't care what other people do, btw. I just get creeped out by STDs for myself. That sounds so mercenary.

[Angela]

Do people still judge others for having casual sex? That is so last century.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

I think you'll get a lot of rep from all the attractive women on this forum for this post. I just tried too, but they did not let me

I repped him because it is so true!

[rei]

Originally Posted by beast

I'm with you here.

But, you know what? I'm a proud feminist, and I don't totally disagree with James's assessment, either. I've never met a woman who has trouble finding sex, if she's putting herself out there. It doesn't matter who she is; sex is easier for women to come by, we're just that sexy and desirable! I do think it's a lot harder for guys to get it, so it makes sense that those who are successful are lauded for it. No reason for women to be slut-shamed, but it makes sense to me.

I agree with you! I think the theory makes sense too, and it does seem to be easier for women to find someone to sleep with them. I just don't believe it syncs up with the residue of woman-as-property that I see as part of the double standard.

His theory sounds more neutral and is going to be less activating for a lot of people but I don't see it as contextually complete. I do see it as more affirming than it is to include the objectification bit.

[rei]

Originally Posted by pyrogen

Casual sex is so easy for women to find precisely because most women don't want it. People can usually find the one thing they're not really looking for. I have known plenty of women who DO want casual sex, who are plenty attractive, who have had times where they couldn't find it if *they* paid for it.

This ties in with my Murphy's Law of Love idea.

Whatever it is that you don't want - rest assured, there's plenty of it to go around.

Well, doesn't that tie into the whole attaching-to-outcome piece? It doesn't show up in your reality *because you don't want it.* It shows up because you are more attached to what you DO want, and if you view it with the energy of wanting that means you'd manifest the wanting rather than the having or being. Holding too tightly to your desire can get in the way of experiencing it.

So I don't know if it is quite a matter of things being in front of you that you don't want, so much as it is about how tightly or gently you hold your desire.

[C33]

I know what people mean by "casual sex", but I don't really like the term.

It sounds like fast food sex, implying a lower level of enjoyment, sensuality. It sounds like a lot of people think casual sex is lower quality than the sex inside a relationship.

Yet plenty of people have boring, unloving, unconnected, mechanical sex within relationships. Some people even refer to sex within a relationship as a chore or a duty. There is purely mechanical, physical, animalistic, genitals only sex ( even though I do think the brain is involved) inside and outside relationships.

I think people have a way of belittling sexual activity that is not linked to procreation or a long term relationship, and that most people view on sex is extremely restrictive and is only the sex that has to do with mating, monkey-sex, if you will.

I have practiced what is commonly called " casual sex" for years, even though, a majority of the time, it didn't feel "casual".

Many of those partners, I am very thankful for , since they have given me a gift of sensuality and tenderness, as well as a sense of physical, emotional and human connection.
It' s not because you interact with someone for a short time that you don't get long lasting benefits from that time. There are people we meet once in our life that bear gifts of love, kindness and understanding.

It's the expectations that are disappointing.If you expect the guy/girl to call you back, you might get hurt. It seems that people think that having sex triggers emotional attachment/connection that is necessarily going to hurt them in the end.What about the positive effects of pleasure? Why is it important to get attached? Why is getting attached/ caring about the other person/ being loving exclusively the territory of LTR?

"Casual sex" is a sexual connection between 2 people. Sometimes, it can be indeed casual ( mostly physical with no emotional exchange - I would describe that as eating a good piece of chocolate), other times, it can be magical and special, some other times it can be healing.

This is when it has become an addiction and a compulsion that it can be a bad experience, because the energy of desperation attracts men who use women. If one's personal energy is that of strength, sexual confidence and wholeness, the chances of attracting a healthy partner are much greater.

Also, I have "casual sex" according to my set of ethics, which is with people who are unattached/single( as far as I know).

As far as diseases are concerned, safe sex and getting tested often are the best prevention.Plenty of people get diseases from their cheating spouses/long term partner.

[dulaney0330]

As the conservative of the board, I frown upon casual sex since it is against my morals and beliefs about physical intimacy and sex. Obviously, others can do what they want and while I disagree, I am not one to preach to someone about it.

As a teenager, the idea would sometimes be appealing but the belief that I was simply engaging in an intimate act simply for "sexual desire" was enough for me to decide against it. I would feel more used than anything.

[pyrogen]

Originally Posted by rei

Well, doesn't that tie into the whole attaching-to-outcome piece? It doesn't show up in your reality *because you don't want it.* It shows up because you are more attached to what you DO want, and if you view it with the energy of wanting that means you'd manifest the wanting rather than the having or being. Holding too tightly to your desire can get in the way of experiencing it.

So I don't know if it is quite a matter of things being in front of you that you don't want, so much as it is about how tightly or gently you hold your desire.

I actually think that's precisely it. Some people seem to find "meaningful" the moment they stop attempting to attach so much "meaning".

I identified two basic psychologies in mate-seeking, about two years ago... tactical vs zen.

Tactical = the "I'm going to try really hard!" method. Wear dress A to club B. Look for X, Y, Z body language. Memorize pickup lines and methods. Insert tab A into slot B. Attempt to date LOTS OF PEOPLE and meet as many people as possible. It's basically the PUA approach, but mainstream dating is exactly the same psychology. Most women's dating books and most dating coaches are tactically oriented. If you see love as something that you can get to "work", that has rules and methods... you're in this frame of mind. Some women hold off on casual sex because they are heat-seeking Relationship missiles, and they think that casual sex is tactically bad, and they feel that having sex on one particular date or another will give them tactical advantage.

Zen = the "I'm just living my life enjoying people, without any intention or agenda whatsoever" method. This is the frame of mind people often tend to be in when they actually *find* a relationship that works. That said, sexual boundaries are still an individual's to decide upon. Hormones are hormones and it's very difficult for some people to *not* have an agenda when sex gets involved. I know that it might be difficult for me, for example. It's difficult for many women because of the way we're wired, oxytocin and all. And just because I don't have an agenda, doesn't mean my partner doesn't.

This so ties into the other two threads:

Do Only Women Say "...When I Wasn't Looking"?

be vs. have

Perhaps "casual sex" is a misnomer; there's only "agenda sex" vs "agenda-less sex".

[rei]

That's fascinating and definitely makes sense to me. I have been using the tactical model to live out a zen attitude! As in, using the tactical-minded outlets, but from a place of just wanting to make connections and experience new things.

I think as you say plenty of women can't be physically intimate without attachment. There's those of us who CAN do it, though. The sex I've had that involved no interest in or expectation of commitment just had a different flavor to other forms of sexual relating - and even then it has sometimes been quite sweet, tender and loving. Yes, for me, it is a little bit harder to separate out when the casual sex has the strong flavor of "making love" instead. It has usually not been that flavor, though.

I think the term "casual sex" is a bit vague, and it seems to generally be used as an alternative to sex within (or moving toward) an exclusive relationship. It isn't even about commitment because it uses monogamy as the assumed alternative. You can be committed without being monogamous.

[pyrogen]

Originally Posted by rei

That's fascinating and definitely makes sense to me. I have been using the tactical model to live out a zen attitude! As in, using the tactical-minded outlets, but from a place of just wanting to make connections and experience new things.

I think as you say plenty of women can't be physically intimate without attachment. There's those of us who CAN do it, though. The sex I've had that involved no interest in or expectation of commitment just had a different flavor to other forms of sexual relating - and even then it has sometimes been quite sweet, tender and loving. Yes, for me, it is a little bit harder to separate out when the casual sex has the strong flavor of "making love" instead. It has usually not been that flavor, though.

I think the term "casual sex" is a bit vague, and it seems to generally be used as an alternative to sex within (or moving toward) an exclusive relationship. It isn't even about commitment because it uses monogamy as the assumed alternative. You can be committed without being monogamous.

Right.

Unfortunately, the male-female dating world does have its share of politics, and many men become so used to finding women who are agendaless that they stop even being aware that some women might *have* an agenda. That can be problematic. That's dominantly an issue in the "dating arena", though. It doesn't come up as much when you meet someone as a friend, you click, there aren't expectations or agendas from either side, and you have organic, natural chemistry. But the "dating arena" itself is full of expectations just because it's the dating arena. You go on OKCupid, you probably expect that anyone you meet is going to be a date, not a friend, and it's easy to switch into one or more of several low-vibe mindsets about the whole thing.

The most "agendaless" sex I've ever had has been within an established relationship, and with someone who was an FWB. It's great when you're able to let things occasionally go wrong, and you can both laugh about it and try again later when the moment strikes you. I think the best thing about relationship sex for me, was the total freedom to let it be meaningless. When it was a new relationship or in the pre-relationship phase, it was always a bit stressful. Because I *did* have an agenda.

I'm not all that sure if I could approach sex with a near-stranger without an agenda... I don't honestly know. Male-female politics being what they are, I certainly could not have done it in the hetero world. I feel a bit freer in the non-hetero world, though. But it's possibly even more dangerous there. My last relationship basically took place because of two sets of female postorgasmic bonding hormones, with little other "glue".

[rei]

Yes that raises a good point, too.

I am not against casual sex (would not make sense for me to be, having practiced it and even quite recently), but I did come across an argument against it that sort of made sense to me (or to the little remnant of restrictive morality within me, maybe).

Basically the argument was, a large portion of the women who do the casual sex thing, eventually want to get some within a partnership. But at that point they might have some difficulty, if they hold out on intimacy. The argument was basically, if there's enough women who don't require monogamy first, it would be more difficult to find a suitable partner who was willing to wait. The point was basically that women were making it harder for each other to collectively partner up due to some within the gender being so open and willing to be physical.

This argument was highly tactical, I'd say. I'd also say the right-for-you person will be into you enough that they will be okay with waiting to consummate, if a person chooses to wait. So in that sense I think the argument is invalid. It's also very steeped in lack.

I wouldn't say I agree with the point of that argument but it did make a little sense to me at the time, only in certain areas or in certain relational cultures. Saw it when reading an article about how many people get into cohabitating relationships, and one or both people WANT marriage, but they just get into the living-together groove and several years go by before they realize it isn't the right-for-them person and move on.

[elucidate]

I just meant the liberal attitude towards sex and younger people there, which I should have been clearer about...but you're right, I wasn't alltogether sure if that happened in the netherlands or sweden, but I felt confident that you would set me straight either way.

Originally Posted by ssandra

Are you saying that in the Netherlands it is the norm for young girls to be in porn movies?

I think I'm misunderstanding you here... cause that is definitely NOT the norm...

Interesting fact though; (not in reply to you Elucidate, just general interesting fact).
The Netherlands (and other, more open minded countries) have a way lower rate of teen pregnancy then the US. And our teens really do not have less sex

172.061 births per 1 million people for the Netherlands
1,671.63 births per 1 million people for the US (which I can only assume is that lots of teen moms have multiple children....)

Teenage pregnancy (per capita) (most recent) by country

[pyrogen]

Originally Posted by rei

Yes that raises a good point, too.

I am not against casual sex (would not make sense for me to be, having practiced it and even quite recently), but I did come across an argument against it that sort of made sense to me (or to the little remnant of restrictive morality within me, maybe).

Basically the argument was, a large portion of the women who do the casual sex thing, eventually want to get some within a partnership. But at that point they might have some difficulty, if they hold out on intimacy. The argument was basically, if there's enough women who don't require monogamy first, it would be more difficult to find a suitable partner who was willing to wait. The point was basically that women were making it harder for each other to collectively partner up due to some within the gender being so open and willing to be physical.

This argument was highly tactical, I'd say. I'd also say the right-for-you person will be into you enough that they will be okay with waiting to consummate.

I don't know if I totally agree with the point of that argument but it did make a little sense to me at the time. Saw it when reading an article about how many people get into cohabitating relationships, and one or both people WANT marriage, but they just get into the living-together groove and several years go by before they realize it isn't the right-for-them person and move on.

I've seen this over and over. I agree with it from a tactical perspective, and yes, it's a very highly tactical argument. The behavior of a few women definitely does influence what is gotten by the other women in the group.
In fact, this may be why some women are not getting casual sex when they *do* want it... because so many are now offering that it's no longer a scarce commodity.

That said, people still do connect and fall in love in the real world, totally apart from tactics or market theory or dating economics or PUA or The Rules or the like. Again... usually when they're not looking. And when it won't be the end of the world if no relationship materializes.

Because when we look, we have filters, expectations and agendas.

[rei]

My agenda is to have fun and be fun (or more like just be me, which is awesomesauce).

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by rei

I disagree. His theory is about supply, demand and access.

I think the double standard is left over from a time when women were viewed as property. So your property was less valuable if it was, er, second hand. You were marrying to get a virgin back then.

While there is an element of value in his theory it misses the objectification which I think is residually expressed in that double standard.

This is more how I see it as well. I think even nojobrob said it, that the thought of how many other men have been down there...it has this úsed up'or únclean' connotation to it, that ruins the mans illusion of a woman being pure and chaste.

[Rezzy7]

Originally Posted by NoJobRob

There's a reason prostitution is frowned upon, and generally disgusting as a profession.

Originally Posted by ssandra

Really? There are people who think prostitution is disgusting? Hmmm that's a surprise for me.

I would think a "pro" would know how to remain clean and healthy for the next... maybe they use something like the paper on exam tables when you see the doctor.

Originally Posted by ssandra

For me, as long as they take a shower and have good body hygiene (which is needed anyway if they want to have sex with me) I don't care if their last time was 10 years ago or 10 minutes. Non of my business.

The fact that they are clean and not smelly.. THAT is my business

Even if it's not my biz, if I was with someone who possibly was with another dude recently, it would surely enter my mind at some point. My imagination is probably, classically, worse than reality, and in my mind if she gave him a bj, kissing her would be psychologically too close to S-ing his D.

Originally Posted by danas

my criteria for casual sex is- the guy needs to be physically sexy but unintelligent, or have some other very unattractive trait in his personality (Like unhealthy)
If I feel too smart next to them, I dont mind having casual sex with them bc then I know I wont get attached.

If however I make the mistake of having casual sex with a guy who is both smart and sexy- I am doomed. Because Ill want a relationship.

Ive noticed this pattern

Somehow this is the first time I've ever heard of this reasoning, and it makes sense. If I understand correctly it suggests the reason some guys get turned down is actually their positive characteristics, not negative ones.

Originally Posted by pyrogen

I have known plenty of women who DO want casual sex, who are plenty attractive, who have had times where they couldn't find it if *they* paid for it.

Quoting a comedian whose name escapes me right now, "I can help."

[Rezzy7]

Originally Posted by st33med

Attractive women (as in generally attractive to the public, ie big boobs and butt and such; there are varying definitions of what's attractive) are actually the most loneliest women. Reason: men are too shy to ask them out because they are afraid to get rejected because they aren't good enough for her. Made a little sound sense.

As you said, it's not always the case. I have heard model/actress types say most men are too intimidated by their looks to approach them at all.

Originally Posted by faithsdaddy

Don't agree. I'm at best average looking, but I've been happy to ask great looking women out. Doesn't always pan out, but if you're going to ask someone out, surely you'd go for the person you're most attracted to.

Is this not common sense?

I don't think it's common sense, but sense. If I'm going to get up the balls to talk to someone, approaching a woman I think is uncommonly attractive provides a motivational boost that makes initial hesitation a non-issue.

[NoJobRob]

Originally Posted by Rezzy7

I would think a "pro" would know how to remain clean and healthy for the next... maybe they use something like the paper on exam tables when you see the doctor.

LOL I'd love to see that scene in a Mel Brooks movie someday.

[Fred Tracy]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I seriously wonder what everybody has against casual sex sometimes.

Casual sex, without relationship can be just as fulfilling and just as entertaining and just as fun and just as hot as sex in a relationship.

I know that it is not like that for everybody, but please don't assume that just because it isn't for you, it isn't for anybody...


Basically just wanted to vent this... But I'm interested in a discussion if others are...

Casual sex is awesome. I support this.

Originally Posted by pyrogen

Casual sex is so easy for women to find precisely because most women don't want it. People can usually find the one thing they're not really looking for. I have known plenty of women who DO want casual sex, who are plenty attractive, who have had times where they couldn't find it if *they* paid for it.

This ties in with my Murphy's Law of Love idea.

Whatever it is that you don't want - rest assured, there's plenty of it to go around.

What if you want everything? =D

[Angelique]

I love them. This world is full of super sweet, romantic guys.

Originally Posted by ssandra

Casual sex, without relationship can be just as fulfilling and just as entertaining and just as fun and just as hot as sex in a relationship.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by C33

I know what people mean by "casual sex", but I don't really like the term.

It sounds like fast food sex, implying a lower level of enjoyment, sensuality. It sounds like a lot of people think casual sex is lower quality than the sex inside a relationship.

Yet plenty of people have boring, unloving, unconnected, mechanical sex within relationships. Some people even refer to sex within a relationship as a chore or a duty. There is purely mechanical, physical, animalistic, genitals only sex ( even though I do think the brain is involved) inside and outside relationships.

I think people have a way of belittling sexual activity that is not linked to procreation or a long term relationship, and that most people view on sex is extremely restrictive and is only the sex that has to do with mating, monkey-sex, if you will.

I have practiced what is commonly called " casual sex" for years, even though, a majority of the time, it didn't feel "casual".

Many of those partners, I am very thankful for , since they have given me a gift of sensuality and tenderness, as well as a sense of physical, emotional and human connection.
It' s not because you interact with someone for a short time that you don't get long lasting benefits from that time. There are people we meet once in our life that bear gifts of love, kindness and understanding.

It's the expectations that are disappointing.If you expect the guy/girl to call you back, you might get hurt. It seems that people think that having sex triggers emotional attachment/connection that is necessarily going to hurt them in the end.What about the positive effects of pleasure? Why is it important to get attached? Why is getting attached/ caring about the other person/ being loving exclusively the territory of LTR?

"Casual sex" is a sexual connection between 2 people. Sometimes, it can be indeed casual ( mostly physical with no emotional exchange - I would describe that as eating a good piece of chocolate), other times, it can be magical and special, some other times it can be healing.

This is when it has become an addiction and a compulsion that it can be a bad experience, because the energy of desperation attracts men who use women. If one's personal energy is that of strength, sexual confidence and wholeness, the chances of attracting a healthy partner are much greater.

Also, I have "casual sex" according to my set of ethics, which is with people who are unattached/single( as far as I know).

As far as diseases are concerned, safe sex and getting tested often are the best prevention.Plenty of people get diseases from their cheating spouses/long term partner.

I love this post so much!

[Orionjoel]

There is a problem for the shy guys, don't know how to ask and where to start in creating the casual encounters.

[upgradereality]

Totally agree with you
Casual sex is awesome, it's fun, exciting and who knows what it may lead to.
As long as you both enjoy the sex then I see nothing wrong with it.

[Cochonette]

Without reading this entire thread, I will say that I've been wondering the same thing. I have never had sex, or even kissed someone. I have had several offers from people to kiss them and keep declining because I can't get into the idea enough and am afraid it will be too unpleasant. I also used to have pretty negative views on sex....

but now I'm all about the sex positivity. I think that watching out for STDs and pregnancy is important, as well as doing it in an emotionally mature way, but other than that, what is the problem? I used to think I might be asexual or just not very sexual, but I think it's just that I'm not attracted to a lot of people / have not had the opportunity or mindset or social skills to make something happen.

And you know, maybe I will turn out to be one of those people who gets emotionally attached. I don't know what all that hormonal stuff from sex is like. But I wouldn't judge others! If it works for you, it could be a wonderful experience.

[givejonadollar]

Love it.

Casual sex is good outside of a relationship. Anyone that thinks otherwise can go to heaven.

[stormpsyche]

Originally Posted by ssandra

The thrill to be with someone new,

WOW! Those words started a flashback for me!

I choose to abstain from casting judgement.....and only wish to make an observation.

A person who lived the same philosophy used those exact words in a conversation with me many years ago. The other parties involved often became very attached. There were several relationships, marriages, partners during marriage, divorces, broken hearts, very upset partners. Last grapevine news (always questionable reliability) was that the person was in counseling (and was also still sporting the same philosophy).

[stormpsyche]

Just wondering about how people are defining casual sex. If you have sex with the same person 500 times (for example), over a time period of several years, without a relationship (is that possible?) is it still considered casual sex?

Or would you define casual sex as being with a certain person only once (or just a few times) and then moving on to someone else?

Or is the definition: any time you have sex when you do not feel any emotional connection to the person (just physical release)?