Casual Sex - Discussion

I think the GGW attitude is displaced feelings of empowerment.

I lived, and remember well, when the 'topless' issue came up in Ontario, back in the '90s. Many women marched topless, in an attempt to exercise their right to chose FOR THEMSELVES whether they would go topless or not, and whether they would breastfeed in public or not. (It`s fairly disgusting, trying to force women into private areas for breastfeeding, as if they should be shunned.)

I got some extra loonies I am willing to use as a bet. Anyone care to keep track of all these GGW young women, and see how they feel 15 years from now about their GGW behaviour? I bet you would have about 20% who would gladly do it all over again. About 70-80% would chide themselves, claiming stupidity, or have feelings of being taken advantage of, or would acknowledge that the empowerment and sexual freedom they were seeking was displaced.

It cannot be gender empowerment if the other gender is leading the charge. That works both ways. There are things for men, that men enjoy, do, and feel is masculine. If women were leading them to it, and through it, it would kinda take the bite off the pride in masculine power.
 
A desire for sex is funny and pathetic? This seems a rather resentful and judgmental way to view the powerful, sacred Eros/libido energies that fuel and fire up a lot of human behavior. It reminds me of the goddess Artemis, in her fearful aspect of being cold, remote, passionless, abstracted and in direct opposition to Aphrodite.

In the haunting Greek tragedy by Euripides, Hippolytus, the main character, is a young man who spurns Aphrodite and his sexual desires and casts all of his loyalties to Artemis. Out of jealousy, Aphrodite embroils him in an icky situation with his stepmother and he's eventually trampled by his own horses, courtesy of Poseidon. He dies a virgin, though. Haha

Is the female desire for sex funny and pathetic also? Or did you just mean the male "desire-to-fuck-anything" impulse that does not discriminate but stands ever at the ready? I think this desire is greatly misunderstood by both men and women. I think it is the opposite side of the same coin of the supposed "lack of interest" in sex that women have. Perhaps this sick and squicky bullshit power imbalance comes from evolutionary imperatives, mating rituals, selective breeding, etc. Perhaps it comes from our shame-based, poisoned culture where sex is in our face all day every day as a matter of commerce and at the same time is denigrated as base and immoral. Regardless of where it comes from, I think there is great misunderstanding and great pain, grief and wounding on all sides.

My desire for sex with a woman has always been an expression of relatively worshipful admiration. I am perhaps not a typical male in this regard. I believe the body is a temple and sex is sacred, even sex with a "stranger." I think the goddess energy in a woman's body is a sacred thing and worthy of being released, touched, loved, cultivated, worshiped. Honored. I experience sexual exchange as a great healing meeting. I have perhaps never had "casual sex" as a result of experiencing it this way. Yes, it can be playful, light, less charged than at other times, but I have always experienced it as a true exchange on some level. There is great spiritual and emotional power in sex, even in a one-night stand.

We all have our resentments and wounds when it comes to the opposite sex. Mine is the tendency of women in our culture to manipulate men through their sexual power. Provocative dress, flirting, presenting as if sexually available and then acting offended, surprised or even ridiculing when an interest is expressed. I think this psychopathology is encouraged by the culture. For a good long time the only power women had was sexual power. To gain power over men through sexual means is the easiest way of all, as men are conditioned to be sexually responsive. There are a multitude of ways in which sexual energies can be used to harm.

I doubt "casual sex" is particularly harmful. Boring, ultimately unrewarding, perhaps a bit icky in retrospect, maybe hollow or shallow, but deeply wounding and harmful? I doubt it. Sexual ridicule, bad-faith power exchange, shaming, controlling and judgmental behavior? Harmful.

Immaterial
 
Casual sex is harmful to someone who doesn`t get much fun out of it. If one is tricked, lied to, or brought into a sexual experience under a falsehood, then yes, it`s harmful. Anyone who needs to lie, or trick someone to get the casual sex they desire is pathetic, at best.

Take a person who is a genuine sexual libertine. Honest about their needs, honest about their desires. Is that person pathetic? No.

Now, do the math on the amount of honest people vs liars.

Being pathetic: that includes both sides of the equation. People who lie and trick in order to get another person into a casual sex experience AND those people who lie to themselves, and pretend they are ok with casual sex, when they really hope for more.

Are pathetic acts ever empowering? Umm, not in my world.
 
Ugh, agreed. Being lied to, tricked or manipulated into a sexual experience sucks. It is a pathetic way to get one's jollies, and falls under my little phrase "bad-faith power exchange." I'd hazard it's not really about desire, but resentment, a desire to get revenge. Sexual revenge is a terrible reality in the manipulative world of bad-faith sexuality. Sexuality has so deeply harmed and wounded many people that they act out in toxic, shame-based ways and are really using false pretenses of being sexually empowered to carry out an agenda of revenge.

But this isn't desire's fault. Good old desire, misunderstood in the extreme, IMO.

Immaterial
 
By the way, re: "Women Gone Wild," you might find Louis CK's comedy bit funny. Go to YouTube and search Louis CK "women gone wild." It's in extraordinarily bad taste but exaggerates the difference in a way I find funny. Look for the version that is about 2 minutes long.

Immaterial
 
immaterial said:
By the way, re: "Women Gone Wild," you might find Louis CK's comedy bit funny. Go to YouTube and search Louis CK "women gone wild." It's in extraordinarily bad taste but exaggerates the difference in a way I find funny. Look for the version that is about 2 minutes long.
Click to expand...

Haha! I love CK Louis! His stuff about kids? Hilarious! I like Canadian comedian Russell Peters, too.
 
His bit titled "fun with a girl" is very funny as well.

My favorites are "suck a bag of dicks" and "everything is great and no one is happy."
:)

Immaterial
 
immaterial said:
We all have our resentments and wounds when it comes to the opposite sex. Mine is the tendency of women in our culture to manipulate men through their sexual power. Provocative dress, flirting, presenting as if sexually available and then acting offended, surprised or even ridiculing when an interest is expressed. I think this psychopathology is encouraged by the culture. For a good long time the only power women had was sexual power. To gain power over men through sexual means is the easiest way of all, as men are conditioned to be sexually responsive. There are a multitude of ways in which sexual energies can be used to harm.
Click to expand...

The underlined is exactly, to me, what is going on. We have been convinced of some crazy stuff around sex by each other due to advertising sex at the same time as forcing it underground. It became far too taboo at some point and also far too over-emphasized. Really, when it comes down to it, it is just a bodily function that needs fulfilling and makes us feel good. To some, that comes with a part of loving (giving and receiving), to others is doesn't and is just a knee-jerk reaction to someone who they think is hot. Whatever, it is still just part of animal behaviour.

Yes, women are taught to control that desire in men and create it at the same time. But in turn that has created "girls gone wild," whereby girls are duped into giving it up. There is some shame and patheticness on both sides really.

immaterial said:
I doubt "casual sex" is particularly harmful. Boring, ultimately unrewarding, perhaps a bit icky in retrospect, maybe hollow or shallow, but deeply wounding and harmful? I doubt it. Sexual ridicule, bad-faith power exchange, shaming, controlling and judgmental behavior? Harmful.
Click to expand...

How can you doubt that "casual sex" has been harmful for some when it has been said over and over again on here that people have experienced that?

To stick with the "girls gone wild" thing, how did those girls feel when they woke up with hangovers only to see their tits all over the internet? Is that not harmful? Have you looked at some of the free porn sites and what is on there? Girls in bars who are fucked while their buddies video it and then send it in, secret cameras, teen porn done by teens who no doubt think that real sex is about spreading their legs really wide for a camera while someone does something to them so the camera sees, not because it feels good. You can see online the tip of an iceberg of situations that could possibly be damaging and harmful to a person. Who knows what goes on? I certainly have my own stories about casual sex that HAVE been harmful and deeply wounding.
 
So you've reiterated my position-- casual sex is not harmful. People's behavior toward each other is. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. And if you take away the guns, they'll stab people. And if you take away the knives, the people who are willing to shoot and stab other people with guns and knives will bludgeon people with whatever happens to be handy.

You are holding the concept of casual sex responsible for these reprehensible behaviors. In that light, I hold committed relationship sex and the institution of marriage responsible for wife battering, alcoholism, and child molestation. ;)
 
Last edited:
However, you are more likely to run into people who won't treat you in the best possible manner in a casual sex scenario. You're more likely to be treated with respect and caring in a loving relationship.
 
Eh... It's a numbers game. If you're having casual sex, you're involved with more people, thus the statistical probability that a bad apple will be encountered increases, as x percent of the people out there are bad apples.

Conversely, I know many people who have only been with one person in their lives, married that person, and are stuck (I use that term VERY loosely, given that I hate people saying they're stuck, you CAN leave, no matter what) in terrible situations with people as bad or worse than what many encounter in casual encounters, and feel obligated to stick it out.

I hold that it's the people involved that can be/are the problem, not the nature of the relationships.

Editing because, upon rereading that, I feel it necessary to expound a bit. I can hear my mother's voice in my head telling me that people who are willing to get involved in casual sex relations are more likely to be the problematic types, and that people looking for steady relationships are more likely to be stable. I cannot stress enough that that type of thinking is A) dead wrong, and B) more than moderately offensive to me.

There is something in the base 'conservative' mindset, pardon me, but ESPECIALLY among the dedicated Christian community, that says that anyone involved in anything that they label 'wrong' is just ASKING for trouble. Folks, it wasn't long ago that society broke away from this mindset enough to stop whispering that rape victims were responsible for what happened. Society needs to agree to certain rules in order for billions of people to exist together in some semblance of harmony, but the idea that anyone who engages in activities YOU think are wrong "have it coming" or "deserve what they get" is dangerous in the extreme. Too many laws consist of people telling other people that they know what's good for them better than they do.

We can agree that cold-blooded murder is wrong; the majority here is overwhelming. But that marriage is between one man and one woman, period? Well now, I'd like to see a popular vote on that one. Between poly folk, gays, and whatever else is out there, I bet the minority is big enough to matter, and an aweful lot bigger than the one saying murder is acceptable. LOL

Ooh, I got long, and I could keep right on going. I'll refrain. Ya'll get what I'm saying. ;)
 
Last edited:
HMA, in YOUR life, for yourself, it is wrong. Truth is, it is a matter of perspective. I`ve had nice, casual sex encounters in the past. Nice people. Well meaning, honest people. It`s the NICE people that taught me/made me realize that casual sex is boring as hell (to me). Pointless (to me), and a complete waste of time and resources. It completely lacks in every aspect, based on nothing but the act itself.

My stable relationships are... stable, which is a far cry from casual ones.

As far as separating the act itself from the people who abuse it, flip that POV around. If one doesn`t engage in casual sex, who does it hurt ? No one. Engage in casual sex, and at best you have a 50/50 shot of it being a worthwhile experience, even if you do like it generally. It is MORE then a numbers game. It is a game of many variables. Compatibility, lucky choices, good guesses, no interference, and like minds.

Some people just don`t think it`s worth the effort. That`s it. That`s all.

We could play the gun-analogy game, but truth is, it`s like everything else in life. Do what works best for you, and don`t condemn others for their beliefs. If you like it, do it. If someone else doesn`t, they are not wrong. It is their choice. The only people wrong are those who try and beat their version of the truth into others. Regardless of the subject, or what side of the fence you sit on.

No offence, but what you said earlier (and I do not think it was your intention, just your passion showing through), you were doing the same thing, in one breath, as what you accused others of.
 
I'm with Superjast. "For me" casual sex is boring and a waste of time. If I need to orgasm I'll jerk off. I don't need someone's body to move my penis around inside to achieve that. I'm not even interested in sex if Redpepper and I aren't completely connected. It doesn't feel right to take something from her body unless I am giving something back to her heart. But this is me. I'm old, damaged but very self aware.
 
Superjast, thanks for what you said. I agree. It's all a matter of difference, and we need to embrace differences, find interest in that and learn from that. What the hell are we on this forum for if not to learn?
 
I was not condemning those who do not wish to engage in such behavior; I was openly bitching that many who make that choice feel it is their duty or calling in life to condemn those of us who do. Period.

Read into it what you will. Nowhere in any post I have made have I ever condemned anyone for choosing not to engage in casual encounters.
 
HappiestManAlive said:
I was not condemning those who do not wish to engage in such behavior; I was openly bitching that many who make that choice feel it is their duty or calling in life to condemn those of us who do. Period. Read into it what you will. Nowhere in any post I have made have I ever condemned anyone for choosing not to engage in casual encounters.
Click to expand...

*meh* I didn't read that.
 
It was said in response to:

"I can hear my mother's voice in my head telling me that people who are willing to get involved in casual sex relations are more likely to be the problematic types, and that people looking for steady relationships are more likely to be stable. I cannot stress enough that that type of thinking is A) dead wrong, and B) more than moderately offensive to me."


Your mother's opinion is not wrong, just different then yours. Many who are poly hold the same beliefs about stable relationship choices.

As for condemning, that is a generalized statement. We all need to be careful of the slippery slope that comes from feeling outside of the box. It can be very easy to feel frustration, and lash out at a segment of society we feel is responsible for shunning us. I know I can get fed up and break off. Usually someone smart reminds me of the greater good.
 
Superjast said:
"I can her my mother's voice in my head telling me that people who are willing to get involved in casual sex relations are more likely to be the problematic types, and that people looking for steady relationships are more likely to be stable. I cannot stress enough that that type of thinking is A) dead wrong, and B) more than moderately offensive to me."

Your mothers' opinion, is not wrong, just different then yours. Many who are poly hold the same beliefs about stable relationship choices.
Click to expand...

I have generally abandoned this forum for a variety of reasons, but this thread was pointed back to me by a fellow sex educator. This right here is a huge sticking point with those who promote sex positivity. The thinking HMA was describing as dead wrong is indeed dead wrong, and here's why:

It is making a blanket statement that is full of assumptions about the motivations of other people. It is basically saying that those who engage in casual sex must have something wrong with them, and that those who don't must be more reliable for relationships. This is an attempt to disguise something that is presented as fact (as erroneous and assumed as the fact may be) and trying to pass it off as opinion. It is exactly like saying "I feel polyamorous people are greedy, so I know poly relationships aren't right FOR ME," or, "Bisexual people can't really make up their minds, so FOR ME it's not going to meet my needs to date them." For some reason, adding the "for me" is supposed to allow the person to claim that nobody can correct their erroneous and wrong way of thinking, because it's their opinion and their feelings.

Quite frankly, this overprotectiveness and need to protect such erroneous ways of thinking about the motivations of others is part of the culture that I decided to leave here.

Just as a tidbit on the numbers game, the number of partners a person has isn't the thing that determines how likely they are to have STIs. It's how intelligently they approach each partner from the standpoint of safety. For instance, legal prostitutes generally have a lower rate of STIs than swingers. It certainly isn't the number of partners that distinguishes that disparity.

I'm not sure if I'll be back to the forum, but I've done my bit for the sex educators.
 
Ceoli, I do see how others can get their hackles up. I don`t believe two wrongs make a right, however. As stated earlier, it`s a individual`s choice. Thanks for the educational link though. While I have seen it before, I am sure others will benefit from it.

As for leaving forums, well, that's another personal choice. Good luck to you in all areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top