Casual sex

[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?

 

[Zorak the Mantis]

I think casual sex outside of a relationship is fine, as long as both parties are responsible. However, I don't think it's acceptable for people in a committed relationship to sleep around. Unless everyone involved agrees, it only serves to betray the other partners trust and confidence.

 

[trollnystan]

Personally, casual/promiscuous sex is not for me. I've been offered and it made me cringe. But I'm not going to judge anyone else for it. As long as they practise safe sex and are honest to their partners then I have no problem with them. It's when people start spreading diseases and lying to people to get laid that I can get get the urge to *****-slap them.

Sex feels good and all (or so they tell me), but hurting and lying to people just to get laid is stupid.

In short: what consenting adults do together in private is none of my business.

 

[intheweeds]

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.

There is more to that peice of paper than tax breaks as well. It makes a 'blood' tie in the eyes of the government where there was none before. If your husband/wife gets in a car accident and is on life support, only immediate family will be allowed to see you or have any say in your treatment. Marriage allows you to be a spouse rather than some non-blood friend. That is the main reason most gays i know want marriage. Imagine being with someone for 20 years and not being able to visit them in the hospital.

OT: I'm OK with whatever any single person wants to do with themselves. Any partnered people who are in some kind of agreement as well. It's not for me though. I have been there myself and seen many other situations and I have never seen it work out without some kind of drama.

If that's what you want to do, by all means, it's not my body, I don't care what you do with it so long as it doesn't hurt me (that means just because you're single doesn't mean you can fuck my girlfriend and think it's ok. It's not okay to be a dirty homewrecker. Yes i know that the g/f has to make a choice herself to cheat, but the right thing to do is leave that between us).

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

*snip*

"Hey! Try not to suck any dick on the way through the parking lot!"

Clerks FTW!

OT: As long as both people are single and are completely for it, why not?

 

[uzo]

My problem is that I'm so damned good the girls keep coming back for more and it ends up a relationship, which is just what we didn't want in the first place!

Srsly though, my spectacular bedding skills aside, the sexual relations with female friends I've had before have always had one of these endings:

1) Bad ending
Jealousy starts kicking in - humans are, I believe, hard wired to seek long term mates. And, no matter how sexually liberated you and your partner may be, most people end up thinking of their casual sex partner as 'MINE!' ... and therein lies the problem - you're in a relationship, but you're telling yourself that you're not. Before you realise it you're picking out curtains together, going to the movies, and having brunch together, and thinking 'hang on ... wtf just happened? why am I spending so much damned time with my fuck buddy in a vertical, clothes-on fashion?!'.

2) Good ending
See above, but you actually want to be in a relationship with the other person. In which case the whole casual sex thing was just a way for a positive relationship to form.

So there ya go. Free love is a crock. Just ask people alive in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Tarakos]

I'm totally okay with the idea. People have stress and sometimes they need a release, without the added stress of a relationship. If two similar-minded people who need to get off and are comfortable with each other want to do it, then there's no problem.

I myself am in a FwB at the moment, and it's fantastic. Although, she's my ex from a serious relationship, so maybe it's not all that healthy, but what the hell.

Of course, you can't live off FwB forever. Eventually, you have to find someone to actually be with to be happy in the long run.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I use protection and try to learn new tricks every time. It's good to know what you like before you find that special someone.

 

[SuperiorityComplex]

I find sex to be more awesome as a 'heat of the moment' thing. Mostly at home, but I still enjoy sex and if somebody I liked the look of asked me if I wanted sex, I wouldn't say no. Sex is made to be enjoyed, not shunned, in my book.

I understand, people want to save it for marriage. People want to get married, be in monogamous relationships, etc etc. And I find it depends on the person that I'm sleeping with. Some people are relationship material, some aren't. Doesn't mean the sex is ever bad, and it doesn't mean I'll say no because they're not relationship material for me.

 

[Limecake]

Well lately I've been doing really well with the ladies at bar's and parties.

I am not usually a casual sex guy but I guess I may as well try something new.

 

[Odysseous2]

I'm a bit partial to both sides of the argument.

It's true that guys and girls can rarely be friends without there being sexual tension between them. Having said that, if a female friend of mine approached me and asked for sex, I would likely say yes, but that's really only because of the huge influence my penis takes on my thought process. Assuming I'd have a clear head when met with this offer, I would likely decline. Why, you ask?

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

This is why. While sex is often intended only to be a source of good (though not always clean) fun, our bodies are really designed to feel it as something more. If you have sex with a close friends, nine out of ten times, you're going to develop deeper feelings for them. After all, there's nothing more personal you can share with a mate than sex. It's very, very, VERY difficult to keep the "just friends" attitude with a girl after you've just plowed her bean field. And, no matter how much some may deny it, this is ALWAYS the case.

That's why casual sex is a sign of moral weakness. Deeper feelings of affection and intimacy almost always follow a session of good sex (with someone you already know well, obviously. I'm not saying you'll fall in love with that hooker around the corner). Sex is personal, and everyone knows that. People who are willing to have sex with a female friend and plan to treat it as just so, as opposed to something more, are in denial, because it's nearly impossible to wear the same face around her after the bed business is done.

So, in essence, casual sex is like lying to yourself. It's trying to ignore the deeper feelings that are typically associated with sexual activity. That in mind, no, I wouldn't likely have sex with a friend, unless I were planning for it to be the impetus of a relationship.

 

[Undead Dragon King]

I'm reminded of the 1989 study where several students, male and female, who were in on the study went around college campuses asking unknown students of the opposite gender if they wanted to have sex that night. It was billed as the epitome of casual sex.

75% of male respondents said yes. 0% of female respondents said yes.

These numbers are telling. I believe that most men are quite happy with such a proposal because they don't see the loose woman as a person; they merely see her as a collection of an ass, breasts and vagina to enjoy a night of friction with, then move on. They have zero respect for her because she has zero respect for herself. Why shouldn't they "fulfill the urge" if she's willing to indulge them?

I respect women who want to go beyond simply sleeping around. I think sex should only be in a committed relationship or in the bounds of marriage. The way I see it, if you're friendly with someone, you'd say you were "close" to them, right? Progressively, if you were very good frinds with someone, you'd say you were "very close". Well, what happens when the two of you are so close that you're literally overlapping each other? That, boys and girls, is sex. What kind of friend would you consider that other person to be whom you've overlapped with? Someone you must love a hell of a lot, if you ask me.

 

[mental_looney]

Shrug people can do what they want, I'm not going to judge tried it and it didn't end well, rather stick to the relationship, as I enjoy the day to day things and well living with somone you can usually get enough random sex anyway

 

[SuperiorityComplex]

I'm a bit partial to both sides of the argument.

It's true that guys and girls can rarely be friends without there being sexual tension between them. Having said that, if a female friend of mine approached me and asked for sex, I would likely say yes, but that's really only because of the huge influence my penis takes on my thought process. Assuming I'd have a clear head when met with this offer, I would likely decline. Why, you ask?

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

This is why. While sex is often intended only to be a source of good (though not always clean) fun, our bodies are really designed to feel it as something more. If you have sex with a close friends, nine out of ten times, you're going to develop deeper feelings for them. After all, there's nothing more personal you can share with a mate than sex. It's very, very, VERY difficult to keep the "just friends" attitude with a girl after you've just plowed her bean field. And, no matter how much some may deny it, this is ALWAYS the case.

That's why casual sex is a sign of moral weakness. Deeper feelings of affection and intimacy almost always follow a session of good sex (with someone you already know well, obviously. I'm not saying you'll fall in love with that hooker around the corner). Sex is personal, and everyone knows that. People who are willing to have sex with a female friend and plan to treat it as just so, as opposed to something more, are in denial, because it's nearly impossible to wear the same face around her after the bed business is done.

So, in essence, casual sex is like lying to yourself. It's trying to ignore the deeper feelings that are typically associated with sexual activity. That in mind, no, I wouldn't likely have sex with a friend, unless I were planning for it to be the impetus of a relationship.

I don't agree. I've slept with guys, it hasn't worked out, but we're still damn good friends and we still talk as much as any other friend would. I don't even feel I should have to point that out but it was -sex-. Nothing more. It's not going to kill us to still be friends after being naked together.

In relationships, you have the crap relationships. Casually, you have the crap sex. It happens. So no, I don't actually 'know' that sex is personal. For me, it's not. For me, it's something I will do with people I want to do it with. He uses a condom, I use the pill, and from then on it's plain sailing.

I'd rather not live or die by a rule of 'oh, sex is supposed to be personal so I should only do it with specific people'. To me, to follow that rule, it's sex with one person for the rest of your life. That *is* personal. Or you can understand that 'personal' means different things to different people.

 

[Wait...What]

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?

Seconded. Cant really add much more just what you said (slow 80's movie clap for reading my mind )

OT-I am very pro casual sex. If both parties are aware that its just casual and no ones getting hurt what's the big deal? Sex makes you less wound up, its good exercise, as long as you're safe i say 'FUCK IT' (pun intended)

 

[SckizoBoy]

What do you people think of casual sex or being friends with benefits? What do you think of women/men who sleep around a bit? Would you consider going steady with someone like that? Any experiences on the matter?

I myself am female and quite open for sex with friends (supposing that all parties are single etc). Consequently, I've had some sweet sexy times with a few of my friends. I have enjoyed these encounters a great deal. However, I know this is met with some scorn and would like to hear what others think of the subject.

My one experience with casual sex is probably one of the most fucked up stories... ever... and probably the least shocking part was that it was with a very angry lesbian. Yeah... uh... yeah...

But at least it ended with little to no drama, so it could've been soooo sososo much worse.

Anyway, don't think it's really for me, even if I ignore the above.

Fuck buddies we called them then no idea what they call it now.

That's all I've known it being called... 'friends with benefits' notwithstanding.