Casual Sex - Discussion

LOL! You're cute, let's shag!
 
Heh. I can also be quite submissive, sometimes both in the same session. Things I learned in kindergarten: sharing means caring! (see my recent post on the BDsM thread.)

Actually, I am assertive, not aggressive. I am much too nice and nurturing to be aggressive. I watch body language and check in with the bottom often when topping, to make sure everything is cool.
 
Heh. I can also be quite submissive, sometimes both in the same session. Things I learned in kindergarten: sharing means caring!

Actually, I am assertive, not aggressive. I am much too nice and nurturing to be aggressive. I watch body language and check in with the bottom often when topping, to make sure everything is cool.

When I use the term aggressive, I do mean assertive. I just prefer the sound of the term...it rolls off the tongue better

The same way I prefer my subs bratty. I don't want them to throw hissy fits and whine and complain...but I do like a fight :)
 
aggressive

1.
characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing
2.
making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive
3.
vigorously energetic, esp. in the use of initiative and forcefulness
4.
boldly assertive and forward; pushy

I am not pushy, competitive or menacing. I guess def #3 is me.

I see that dictionary.com says aggressive is a synonym for assertive, but I definitely see a distinction.
 
There are different degrees of aggression. I think its one of those words that can be taken to an extreme. With such a potential range in impact of meaning some people won't like it.

Assertive I think is on the "nicer" side of aggression :)
 
:) I guess we've derailed this thread long enough! Back to the OP... I can get into somewhat casual sex b/c I am sociable, flirty and sexually rather insatiable. I can match my 20something boytoys, even out-do them on a regular basis, and still have plenty left for my gf when I get home.
 
This is a wonderful, erotic thread. It's interesting to read it from beginning (flirtation and foreplay) to end (thundering whole body orgasms), with a few blow jobs and some cunnilingus, handjobs and soaked towels strewn along the way.

I'll endeavor to bring everyone down with a few not-so-erotic words. Think of me as Artemis, not Aphrodite, except I'm a guy, so Hermes, not Pan. Or something like that.

I don't know how people define "casual sex." Is that like asking for a definition of "blow job" or more like a definition of "obscenity"? Are we supposed to know it when we "see" it? I like how YGirl wrote about having casual sex with her husband. I have had sig others say to me "you know, we could just fuck, it doesn't have to be a big production." This speaks to my confusion, I guess.

So, is casual sex the physical acts of sex but without emotional connection? Without tenderness? Without intimacy and connection? Without commitment? Without without without? Can it only be negatively defined? If so, does it even really exist in pure form?

I am still figuring all of this out, but it seems sex is a wonderfully expressive, creative, surprisingly sensual and intense reality. I'm not sure what casual sex would be like. Like shaking hands? In other words, like a physical exchange but with no feeling, not even really pleasure?

I'm interested in these questions because at the moment in my experience, "casual sex" seems as mythical as the fabled Unicorn. I have always met another human being when sex has been happening involving me. (haha, what a sentence). I haven't really had casual sex, I guess. Ever. Even when I was paying for it. My partners might have, but I didn't. It's odd to realize this.

If any women from the forum are traveling through Phoenix and want to pop my casual sex cherry, send me a private message. :)

Immaterial
 
Hmm... I'm not entirely sure how to define 'casual' sex now. I had assumed that it meant sex with someone you didn't know, but that doesn't seem to fit. Would casual sex mean the difference between 'making love' and sex that's just for fun? Sex without the deep, emotional connection?
If you have recurring casual sex with someone, does any kind of bond develop that turns the 'casualness' into something else?
 
Hmm... I'm not entirely sure how to define 'casual' sex now. I had assumed that it meant sex with someone you didn't know, but that doesn't seem to fit. Would casual sex mean the difference between 'making love' and sex that's just for fun? Sex without the deep, emotional connection?
If you have recurring casual sex with someone, does any kind of bond develop that turns the 'casualness' into something else?

For me it would...

sex is bonding for me. Whether it is for fun with an on going intimate friend or the deep love and connection I feel with my loves. It is connecting and brings me closer to people in my life that I chose to share myself with.

Casual sex to me is sex that is with someone that I don't know, don't care to know better, and would be in terms of thinking "meh, you seem alright, i will give my body to you to masturbate into and I will use yours for the same."

I guess it could be seen as a quicky, or a fun light hearted jaunt with someone I love.... hmmmmm?
 
We are swingers, meaning we engage in recreational sex. We freely share our sexuality with like minded friends, without stipulations or committments. It is a leisure time activity, just like our vertical leisure time activities. Life would be very boring if we only played one song with one person, we like playing all kinds of music with all kinds of musicians ;-)
 
For me it would...

sex is bonding for me. Whether it is for fun with an on going intimate friend or the deep love and connection I feel with my loves. It is connecting and brings me closer to people in my life that I chose to share myself with.

Casual sex to me is sex that is with someone that I don't know, don't care to know better, and would be in terms of thinking "meh, you seem alright, i will give my body to you to masturbate into and I will use yours for the same."

I guess it could be seen as a quicky, or a fun light hearted jaunt with someone I love.... hmmmmm?

Stripped of the finer distinctions of knowing/not knowing, wanting to know, not wanting to know, etc., I think this sentence hits home for me: "You masturbate into me and I'll masturbate using you." I'm not sure if this is necessarily "casual," but this gets to the heart of recent ethical thinking and feeling I have been considering and talking with people about.

Using people to get what I want is a particular mode of action in the world. I don't think about protecting myself from being used, so much. I usually imagine myself the perpetrator of the using behavior. I wonder if this is highly gendered in our culture? I do know that women see their genitals and their bodies in general as possessions worth protecting and defending, which I assume has its deep roots in biology. (Just guessing). Do men see their bodies as precious and worthy of protection from being used? Not sure. I have not approached potential sexual interactions this way. In fact, I have been more just a total slut. Use me. Please. Haha, ah yes, very healthy. In the parlance of the human potential movement, this is called "having bad boundaries." Of course, the fortress-and-castle-and-mile-wide-moat approach is also having bad boundaries, but we're more inclined to call it "being picky" or having "morals."

Anyway, back to using and being used as a definition of "casual sex." I think this has some interesting moral and ethical dimensions. Masturbation doesn't really fit easily into this template because I have had an actual autoerotic relationship with myself since I was 12. In other words, even masturbation is not "just physical" for me, nor is it necessarily "casual." It has all sorts of fantasy/imagination/relational components, with as much mental space sometimes as actually being with someone else. I have recently wondered if this autoerotic headspace is a side effect of trying to fit my non-monogamous, poly soul into a mono structure. My fantasy life ranges over many different women, always fluctuating, always changing, polyvalent and wild and completely unpredictable, as befits Eros and the libido.

Immaterial
 
Interesting post immaterial. I have been interested in my fantasies lately also.

Firstly though, I think that women are protective of their genitals because they are entered rather than do the entiring. Something about inviting people into their bodies. It sets up a certain dynamic for sure.

I had an open door policy at one point but found vagrants in the door way and break and enterers when I came to and opened my eyes to what was going on. I spent much time making myself pretty to be enticing to those that might want to be in me. It was bullshit and I feel like an idiot. Not empowered at all. Now I dress nicely in order to be in control and be enticing because I like to look good for myself and those who I have expressed priveledge to enter me. They are dustinquished guests in my castle. The castle I am proud to say is a full of riches and finery rather than a night club or or bar.

Recently I have been thinking about fisting, real dolls, flexi dolls and machines. All around the whole idea of entering others. Interesting you would bring it up. I've been thinking of how I enter others and how I can take the utmost care and respect. Mostly to do with my dominant nature. I want to be good at it and I want those I sub to find comfort in my ability to understand their need for respectful entering.

Thanks for bringing it up immaterial. Always more to think about.
 
^^^as a bi guy...I can pretty much say that the whole, "you can f'ed and I do the f'ing" is pretty universal. It's way different when i'm getting f'ed versus when i'm doing the f'ing. Anyone who is versatile like knows what i'm talking about. Respect should be taken when you are the controller. Because either way you look at it, a stick is uses the hole, a hole can't use a stick, a key uses a keyhole, a keyhole can't use a key. It's a fundamental ideal of our communication and language, that is tied to our emotions, society, and ethics as a whole. This idea doesn't hold up in nature, however it's a logic human tend to relate to all things.
 
I dunno. If we are speaking of physicality and not using metaphors, woman-on-top intercourse position is the hole using the stick, imo. And if a woman is sitting on the face of a partner, and the partner's tongue is up her vagina, wouldnt we agree the owner of the pussy is in charge of the action, even tho it happens to be penetrated? And a couple of men having sex-- if the guy on top has the others' cock in his ass, isn't the top guy still in charge of pace and intensity, despite being penetrated?

etc...
 
gets laid? :)

A woman once was riding hell out of me and coming repeatedly and suddenly stopped and said "I feel so guilty, like I'm using you." It was a tender and funny moment. I was in one place (blisstacy) and she was somewhere else entirely (physically vital with pleasure, but with a disturbed soul).

Seems a shame the way we have to encounter our sense of limitations, sometimes. But it just seems to be that way on this planet.

Immaterial
 
How is that getting it or not getting it though immaterial?

Superjast is implying that some of us "don't get it." what are we not getting? That women can be empowered by their sexuality?
 
Oh, yeah, I was mostly referring back to Gabe's key/keyhole thing. I don't know what Superjast means by getting it or not getting it, and await further instruction. :)

Immaterial
 
Back
Top