quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

So IMHO the question becomes, "Is this person the kind of person who can survive that shearing away without any harm to his/her being?" I know that I personally am not. For me to engage in sleeping around would be to do violence to my own nature--an earlier age would be using words like "cheapen, coarsen, profane".

---

quote:

---

St Deird: Casual sex is deliberately taking what your body is doing, and cutting it off from the corresponding emotions/thoughts that should go along with the physical act. That's bad for you. (What Lamb Chopped says about "becoming numb", for instance.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

St Deird: Casual sex is deliberately taking what your body is doing, and cutting it off from the corresponding emotions/thoughts that should go along with the physical act. That's bad for you. (What Lamb Chopped says about "becoming numb", for instance.)

---

That might be true for some people. I don't feel numb.

---

Yes, I was going to say, speak for yourself. Like Boogie, I slept around when I was in my 20s. My memory is that it was great fun, exciting, pleasurable. Not bad at all.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I'd like to parse out an assumption that seems embedded in the thread title, which is that "sex without love" only occurs in situations of "promiscuity" or "hooking up". The idea that all sex within committed relationships, especially marriage, always involves "love" seems problematic. This feeds into the popular but mistaken notion that marriage is, by itself, a panacea for fixing any emotional wants.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I think some marriages break up because of sex without love, or numbness, or lack of intimacy. And people coming out of such a marriage may start sleeping around, as a kind of compensation.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I'm odd. (No, really?) My partner and I have (and always have had) an open relationship but I don't have (and never have had), um, penetrative sex at all. It seems to work fine for us, but on the other hand since for me everything is kept within certain limits, I'm not sure whether I'm qualified to speak with experience or not.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
We've all approached this from the standpoint of 'does it do me any harm? What does it do to my feelings, self-perception etc?' What about the other person involved?
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:
Well a few things to be considered. When the Bible was written contraception was much more unreliable and there were no antibiotics. Logically you would expect a very conservative position to be taken in scripture. However that's not necessarily the case.

In the Old Testament there are some surprising omissions in the Mosaic law. Not all prostitution was banned, lesbianism was not condemned, and polygamy was not only allowed, but in the case of levirate marriage, was even commanded with those who refused to marry another wife publicly shamed !

In the New Testament even the word for fornication can be translated with relation to idolatry, so its not always as clear in Greek as to the meaning as it gets translated in English.

There doesn't seem to be any punishment for consequential sex outside marriage at least for heterosexual couples or lesbians. God could have put this in the Mosaic law but didn't as far as I can tell.

So I don't think its quite as clear cut as many evangelicals would have their congregations to believe. Whether its a good idea or not might depend on the circumstances. I've seen plenty of happy marriages that started out with a fling before tying the knot, and vice versa.

I do wonder looking at the large number of single sexually frustrated Christians we have in our churches if what has really damaged some of them is the 'adding to God's laws' that routinely goes on in pulpits - where they are taught in some that even to 'lust' or masturbate is a sin. (The rather crap 'Freedom in Christ' course being a prime recent example...)

---

quote:

---

Enoch: What does it do to my feelings, self-perception etc?'

---

quote:

---

Enoch: What about the other person involved?

---

quote:

---

I am not considering the medical or disease consequences, nor unwanted pregnancies, nor abortion in my question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
My own rule is: if I engage in casual sex, then I'm honest about it. The other person knows what she's getting into, and she can take it or leave it. I'm not sure if my responsibility goes much further than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think there is a responsibility not to take advantage of somebody vulnerable in some way. But that has limits also; you can't demand a psychological CV every time.

---

quote:

---

no prophet's flag is set so...: What of unforeseen consequences within the other person's feelings?

---

quote:

---

no prophet's flag is set so...: Your uncertain statement makes me assert I think there is extended responsibility for more than the physical aspects of sex.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: I think there is a responsibility not to take advantage of somebody vulnerable in some way. But that has limits also; you can't demand a psychological CV every time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
[...] Forgive me, but if you don't want connection, what's wrong with a wank?

---

Likewise, what's wrong with a sport fuck? It's fun, good exercise, a stress buster, and can leave both people reinvigorated.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Q - Yes. I regret those instances I ended up getting shat on, rather less than one where, looking back, I was a real shit.

Speaking metaphorically.

Taking care of someone seems to be a big part of all this, to me. And being taken care of. To me, sex comes as part of really looking for a deep connection. Such connection is not always there within marriage, and within or without its lack can drive something like compulsion - so it's not all good.

Forgive me, but if you don't want connection, what's wrong with a wank?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Far too many liberals and moderates reflexively condemn promiscuity to prove their orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: I'm not sure how you are comparing a wank, since casual sex involves some connection.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: I'm not sure how you are comparing a wank, since casual sex involves some connection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

My answer is that it is impossible to have sex or a sexual encounter without there being psychological consequences, that the biological, psychological and spiritual connect with sex, and that this is either acknowledged or ignored at the peril of the participants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I also need my husband to only have eyes for me!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:
I think that what we do with our bodies is linked to our emotions and our thoughts. I also think that's a good thing.

Casual sex is deliberately taking what your body is doing, and cutting it off from the corresponding emotions/thoughts that should go along with the physical act. That's bad for you. (What Lamb Chopped says about "becoming numb", for instance.)

---

quote:

---

no prophet's flag is set so...: Have none of you had your connection with someone altered because of and during sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My impression is that people in the more mainstream denominations or congregations can be fairly tolerant of serial monogamy, shall we say, so long as it's discreet. And I suppose it usually is in Christian circles.

In British culture promiscuity (if by that we mean fairly brief and casual sexual flings) often goes hand in hand with behaviours or outcomes that are problematic for Christianity, e.g. drunkenness, divorce, reduced religious practice, illegitimacy, abortion, etc. So I think it's hard for Christians to argue that promiscuity is a good thing from a religious point of view. Maybe a theological case could be made for it, but I don't get the impression that our theologians are in a great hurry to make it. Even though some of them may be promiscuous themselves.

---

In some cases, divorce may well be avoided by the couple agreeing to an open relationship. It's plain that, for a great many people, lifelong monogamy isn't the preferred choice.

Yeah, theologians aren't that interested in defending swinging and one night stands. Far too practical. They prefer debating godself's metaphysical relationship with the rim of a coffee mug, or somesuch.

This Lambeth resolution is the kind of closed-minded, blinkered harrumphing churches tend to offer (and I quote from the liberal bit, pre-modification by a cabal of homophobic bishops):-

quote:

---

Clearly some expressions of sexuality are inherently contrary to the Christian way and are sinful. Such unacceptable expression of sexuality include promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, paedophilia, predatory sexual behaviour, and sadomasochism (all of which may be heterosexual and homosexual), adultery, violence against wives, and female circumcision. From a Christian perspective these forms of sexual expression remain sinful in any context. We are particularly concerned about the pressures on young people to engage in sexual activity at an early age, and we urge our Churches to teach the virtue of abstinence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

I do wonder looking at the large number of single sexually frustrated Christians we have in our churches if what has really damaged some of them is the 'adding to God's laws' that routinely goes on in pulpits - where they are taught in some that even to 'lust' or masturbate is a sin. (The rather crap 'Freedom in Christ' course being a prime recent example...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arminian:

I do wonder looking at the large number of single sexually frustrated Christians we have in our churches if what has really damaged some of them is the 'adding to God's laws' that routinely goes on in pulpits - where they are taught in some that even to 'lust' or masturbate is a sin. (The rather crap 'Freedom in Christ' course being a prime recent example...)

---

But the question is, why don't these people just attend churches where no one really minds what you do in your spare time?

The problem (if it is a problem) is not so much that the strict churches exist, but that many people who have religious impulses seem to yearn towards standards of sexual behaviour that are apparently hard to achieve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
In some cases, divorce may well be avoided by the couple agreeing to an open relationship. It's plain that, for a great many people, lifelong monogamy isn't the preferred choice.

---

quote:

---

It's no wonder Christian insights on sex are roundly ignored by society are large.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:
I think that what we do with our bodies is linked to our emotions and our thoughts. I also think that's a good thing.

Casual sex is deliberately taking what your body is doing, and cutting it off from the corresponding emotions/thoughts that should go along with the physical act. That's bad for you. (What Lamb Chopped says about "becoming numb", for instance.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Squidgy ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If the sexual organs become shared between participants within a sexual encounter, do we not consider that other aspects of their humanity are not also shared? How do you successfully leave this out or regulate? And if the partner's feeling changes from the encounter or during it? Have none of you had your connection with someone altered because of and during sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
orfeo

Good points. I think we are seeing some straw men being constructed here - casual sex is soulless, all over in a minute, done in the back of a car, and above all, leaves you feeling hollow and empty. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In some cases, perhaps, although I understand that many open marriages do end in divorce. It sounds like the sort of thing that for many people would require lots of therapy, which isn't practical in most cases.

The romantic ideal of lifelong monogamy is probably more of a problem in our era than in previous ones. We live longer, divorce is easier, and the magical and private life of the couple is exalted above all other relationships, which gives people so much to live up to. We're also conflicted because on the one hand we yearn for specialness and exclusivity, but on the other we abhor routine and sameness.

The other problem is that, despite feminism, double standards still exist, and sexual variety isn't quite as straightforward for as many women as it is for many men. That's partly nurture, but it's also nature, isn't it? I fancy that in the future, conception and childbirth will have to be completely separated from both sexual intercourse and from gender in order for the playing field to be completely even.

---

quote:

---

I think it's a mistake for Christians to expect non-Christians to pay much attention to 'Christian insights on sex'.

---

Good insights get picked up. Take all the casual interest in Buddhism. If Christian thinking is marginalized to a devotional ghetto, it doesn't bode well for its quality, or the faith's continued relevance.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

Sorry, but this is an assertion without much proof. I've had some pretty intense experiences in my life that had nothing to do with sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Is masturbation in your list of activities that can't be done without psychological consequences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd like to parse out an assumption that seems embedded in the thread title, which is that "sex without love" only occurs in situations of "promiscuity" or "hooking up". The idea that all sex within committed relationships, especially marriage, always involves "love" seems problematic. This feeds into the popular but mistaken notion that marriage is, by itself, a panacea for fixing any emotional wants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The other problem is that, despite feminism, double standards still exist, and sexual variety isn't quite as straightforward for as many women as it is for many men. That's partly nurture, but it's also nature, isn't it? I fancy that in the future, conception and childbirth will have to be completely separated from both sexual intercourse and from gender in order for the playing field to be completely even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why should this only apply to sex, though?

I have casual conversations with people I'm never going to meet again. No-one seems to think it's a problem if I invest time and energy into this and give something of myself, knowing that it's a one-time thing.

I've spent hours sharing with a girl on a bus. Life stories, experiencing Niagara Falls together, having a meal. It was really satisfying, and yes she's now my Facebook friend, but realistically it was a one time encounter.

It's not immediately obvious why that is seen as perfectly okay but sexual pleasure is put in some different category.

Perhaps it's just that I'm troubled by the assertion that casual sex is cut off from thoughts and emotions. If that were true, then surely it would be possible to have casual sex with absolutely anyone. I suppose some people are so casual about it they can treat their sexual partner with complete disinterest as a person, but I doubt that's the reality of most one night stands. You have sex with someone on the basis of liking them.

---

quote:

---

saysay: Creating a new human being who is going to need to be fed and sheltered and clothed and educated etc. is not something you do with someone you just met.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

saysay: Creating a new human being who is going to need to be fed and sheltered and clothed and educated etc. is not something you do with someone you just met.

---

That's why I use a condom for casual sex. I realize that it isn't 100% secure, but that's a risk we both take.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I mean, if you can simply take another wife why is adultery such a big deal? Of course, the adultery of wives is usually more of an issue than the adultery of husbands; but the other 9 Commandments (like most religious laws) are addressed particularly to men, so why should the 7th suddenly be for wives only?

A strange business.

---

quote:

---

saysay: I am like Lamb Chopped in that it is something that is simply not in my nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why should this only apply to sex, though?

I have casual conversations with people I'm never going to meet again. No-one seems to think it's a problem if I invest time and energy into this and give something of myself, knowing that it's a one-time thing.

I've spent hours sharing with a girl on a bus. Life stories, experiencing Niagara Falls together, having a meal. It was really satisfying, and yes she's now my Facebook friend, but realistically it was a one time encounter.

It's not immediately obvious why that is seen as perfectly okay but sexual pleasure is put in some different category.

Perhaps it's just that I'm troubled by the assertion that casual sex is cut off from thoughts and emotions. If that were true, then surely it would be possible to have casual sex with absolutely anyone. I suppose some people are so casual about it they can treat their sexual partner with complete disinterest as a person, but I doubt that's the reality of most one night stands. You have sex with someone on the basis of liking them.

---

To me it comes back to the biological reality of being a woman, and the fact that no form of birth control is 100% effective. I support Roe v. Wade and the rights of others to chose differently, but I believe ensoulment is a real thing that happens. Since I'm not sure when it happens, I would not have an abortion.

Creating a new human being who is going to need to be fed and sheltered and clothed and educated etc. is not something you do with someone you just met.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I mean, if you can simply take another wife why is adultery such a big deal? Of course, the adultery of wives is usually more of an issue than the adultery of husbands; but the other 9 Commandments (like most religious laws) are addressed particularly to men, so why should the 7th suddenly be for wives only?

A strange business.

---

It's not a man taking another wife - or even having sex with a prostitute - that is the big deal here. The big deal is a man taking another man's wife (read: 'property').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Problem with the church is that it tends to take an absolutist stance, instead of offering pragmatic, realistic advice.

Also agree about romanticism. Times past, marriage was about alliance and security above all. A woman's consent was a low priority, let alone romance. Times have, thankfully, moved on, but theology seems stuck centuries back, in a weird mix of romantic idealism and puritanism.
[...]
Good insights get picked up. Take all the casual interest in Buddhism. If Christian thinking is marginalized to a devotional ghetto, it doesn't bode well for its quality, or the faith's continued relevance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The other problem is that, despite feminism, double standards still exist, and sexual variety isn't quite as straightforward for as many women as it is for many men. That's partly nurture, but it's also nature, isn't it? I fancy that in the future, conception and childbirth will have to be completely separated from both sexual intercourse and from gender in order for the playing field to be completely even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by : saysay
Given women's anatomy, I think it would take more than that to level the playing field. It's a little more straightforward for a man to have an orgasm in a casual encounter with someone they've never had sex with before than is is for a woman.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Just that when my friends describe some of their sexual encounters they sound horrible to me; they are simply not things that would give me pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, why focus on sex with questions like this? Surely, you share aspects of yourself with other people on a regular basis, including people you're never going to see again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I mean, if you can simply take another wife why is adultery such a big deal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, why focus on sex with questions like this? Surely, you share aspects of yourself with other people on a regular basis, including people you're never going to see again.

---

At a glance, 1 Corinthians 6 would seem to set sex apart. How do those who affirm casual sex read the Apostle here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Christian insights on sex. Gulp. What would they be?

---

Oh, if only we had a board to discuss such things! It could be called "Let's talk over tea," or something like that...

quote:

---

Originally posted by fullgospel:

LIFE ENHANCING.

---

Is this, um, sort of poetry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Speaking metaphorically.

---

Ah! Good to know, yes.
 

---

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I mean, if you can simply take another wife why is adultery such a big deal? Of course, the adultery of wives is usually more of an issue than the adultery of husbands; but the other 9 Commandments (like most religious laws) are addressed particularly to men, so why should the 7th suddenly be for wives only?

A strange business.

---

It's not a man taking another wife - or even having sex with a prostitute - that is the big deal here. The big deal is a man taking another man's wife (read: 'property').

---

But surely that's covered by the other commandments, namely the ones about theft and coveting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

Sorry, but this is an assertion without much proof. I've had some pretty intense experiences in my life that had nothing to do with sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

Sorry, but this is an assertion without much proof. I've had some pretty intense experiences in my life that had nothing to do with sex.

---

Yes, you said it ended with Facebook. A less multimedia, less intense universe.

I recalled where I got "suddenly compact universe of skin and breath and hair".

"When two lovers really love, there's nothing there, but a suddenly compact universe of skin and breath and hair." Coldest Night of the Year, Bruce Cockburn, another Canadian who gets it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What, if any, are the consequences of promiscuity, casual sex, hooking up, etc.?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But if you're finding something in the assertion that "all other sins a man commits are outside his body", [..]

---

quote:

---

My answer is that it is impossible to have sex or a sexual encounter without there being psychological consequences,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
It's just sex, and not really anyone else's business what consenting adults do. Not everything has to be meaningful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:
As with so many things in life, what effect sex has on you depends on what your attitude about it is, so there probably aren't many universal effects common to everyone. Engaging in sex only for physical enjoyment has a very different effect than engaging in it as a way to connect with another person on all levels. What you get out of it depends on what you invest in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We're also conflicted because on the one hand we yearn for specialness and exclusivity, but on the other we abhor routine and sameness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I mean, if you can simply take another wife why is adultery such a big deal? Of course, the adultery of wives is usually more of an issue than the adultery of husbands; but the other 9 Commandments (like most religious laws) are addressed particularly to men, so why should the 7th suddenly be for wives only?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, the OP said "I would also take it as a given that the traditional religious ideas and values speak directly that promiscuity etc is wrong, and do not want to debate this." so if you're talking about morality it seems outside the scope of the original topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But if you're finding something in the assertion that "all other sins a man commits are outside his body", [..]

---

I was thinking more of "For, as it is written, the two shall become one flesh", which to me implies it's a rather more serious affair than a casual bit of fun, and sets sex apart from most of the other day-to-day ways that we interact with our fellow humans.

Which I think agrees with no prophet's OP:

quote:

---

My answer is that it is impossible to have sex or a sexual encounter without there being psychological consequences,

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Orfeo: because sex is different. We do something different during sex that we don't do elsewhere in life. We have suddenly compact universes of conversation, like in your bus example, but there isn't skin and breath and hair, not in the same way.

---

Sorry, but this is an assertion without much proof. I've had some pretty intense experiences in my life that had nothing to do with sex.

---

Ditto, the supposed uniqueness of sex has far more to do with romanticism and the mystery conjured by puritanism than it does the reality of our mating. Sure, it can be amazing, but so can plenty else that doesn't get the church wound up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As a young evangelical I was often told that girls pretended to be interested in sex in order to find love; boys pretended to be interested in love in order to find sex. Any generalisation of half the world's population is going to be problematic, to say the least, but it has struck me in recent years that it this way of looking at things leaves the door wide open for casual male gay sex. If both of you are looking for a bit of fun, and no more than that, are you really harming each other?

---

That's a good question

(Except that the premise is wrong in that girls also enjoy sex and, in fact, have far more intense orgasms than men - no pretence needed!)

I don't think they are harming each other. If they are attracted and mutual consent is involved then go for it, I'd say.

I presume you are talking about heterosexual men having a bit of sexual fun with each other?

<typo>

[ 28. October 2014, 07:08: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
In addition to my last post, I'd like to point out that it's far from clear what "sex" even is. At one extreme, people define it in such a way (penis-in-vagina) that I've never had sex and am fairly unlikely to lose my virginity before I die. Next to that, some people define homosexual sex as anal sex, but I've seen information that about a third of gay men don't like it and never do it.

At the other extreme, some segments of society have treated hand-holding as illicit and kissing as an indication that a baby is on the way.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, I'd still say that sex is an amazing experience, one of the peak experiences and so on. I don't know whether it's the top peak experience of my life, how the hell do you measure that? There is football, after all.

But it's run through my life as a fantastic kind of blissful thing. To quote Woody Allen again, good sex is brilliant, but bad sex is pretty good too. Actually, that's not true, as bad sex can leave you feeling lousy, but then, what is bad sex? Hmm, thinks, remembers, smiles, no, all good really. Even the girl in the timber-yard, look no splinters.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I’m not sure you can separate the physical from the emotional. Sex causes the brain to release oxytocin, which is known to have a role in pair-bonding/creating emotional ties between people. Maybe its effects are stronger for some people than for others?

Like orfeo, I get a big high out of playing music. But my brain isn’t being flooded with hormones to pair-bond me with my fellow musicians.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yes. But why is pair-bonding the ultimate, special thing? There's a fair bit to unpack there.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomsk:

Sex and intimacy go together. Sleeping around detaches them. There isn't a hard and fast rule, but the more people you do it with the more detached they are, do it just with one person and your intimacy level will likely be higher.

---

quote:

---

Evensong: Can be both. But the emotions are just suppressed in the casual encounter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Can be both. But the emotions are just suppressed in the casual encounter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Evensong: Can be both. But the emotions are just suppressed in the casual encounter.

---

I don't remember suppressing any emotions.

---

Perhaps you're very good at suppression.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Evensong: Perhaps you're very good at suppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomsk:

Sex and intimacy go together. Sleeping around detaches them. There isn't a hard and fast rule, but the more people you do it with the more detached they are, do it just with one person and your intimacy level will likely be higher.

---

I think this makes sense in terms of fewer sexual partners before marriage makes for a stronger marriage.

If you sleep around a lot, maybe you just naturally switch off the intimacy aspect. This may make it harder for establishing intimacy when you do find a life partner.

Dunno but it does make sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Can be both. But the emotions are just suppressed in the casual encounter.

---

Another myth; another straw man. Where are people getting this bilge from? Is it from experience, or their own imagination, or maybe what they wish to be true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Can be both. But the emotions are just suppressed in the casual encounter.

---

Another myth; another straw man. Where are people getting this bilge from? Is it from experience, or their own imagination, or maybe what they wish to be true?

---

The bilge comes from research that says fewer sexual encounters tend to be better for quality marriages.

As I said above, makes sense in terms of intimacy.

---

quote:

---

Anselmina: Casual can mean, it seems, either to be 'comfortable at ease' or to do things 'negligibly'. So what does 'casual' sex mean? Do I care about it, myself and my partners, or don't I?

---

quote:

---

Anselmina: But I do think that sleeping around is making a superficial thing out of a very un-superficial aspect of being a human being, simply for the sake of enjoying, selfishly, some pleasant sexual episodes.

---

quote:

---

Anselmina: I also disagree with the OP's premise that we can somehow isolate particular aspects of promiscuity, leaving off the possibilities of disease, pregnancy and other kinds of fall-out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Evensong: Perhaps you're very good at suppression.

---

I'm so good at suppression that someone who hasn't been present at these encounters knows what my emotions have been, even if I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Could you give a citation for that please? I think you are conflating an awful lot of different variables here, and often in these discussions, correlation is confused with causation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Could you give a citation for that please? I think you are conflating an awful lot of different variables here, and often in these discussions, correlation is confused with causation.

---

I linked to the article above.

And of course correlation is often confused with causation in these discussions but if the shoe fits it's not a bad place to start. And I wasn't aware we had to prove things before we could discuss them.

Perhaps you just don't like the idea for your own reasons hmmnnnn?

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Well, I've been working with people on psychosexual problems for over 30 years, so I have some experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: Well, I've been working with people on psychosexual problems for over 30 years, so I have some experience.

---

Out of interest (and without asking you to break your professional secrecy): were many of these psychosexual problems caused by casual sex encounters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
, I've been working with people on psychosexual problems for over 30 years, so I have some experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it does frighten me that people training to be Christian ministers or clergy might be absorbing some of the bilge that is coming from you. Hopefully, this is not the case, and there is a greater degree of psychological insight on training courses today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I’m not sure you can separate the physical from the emotional. Sex causes the brain to release oxytocin, which is known to have a role in pair-bonding/creating emotional ties between people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Enoch's point seems to be to be the right one here. Given that we all seem to be agreed that sexual encounters to involve some sort of "more than physical" connection with someone, even if all one says is true about it not affecting you, you have no idea whether that's true about the other person.

In our culture "consent" is the magic concept that is supposed to solve this problem. But it's no surprise that people consent to sex out of all sorts of unhealthy reasons - low self esteem, wanting to be liked, inhibitions lowered through alcohol and so forth. I don't think "consent" vitiates the other person's responsibility to consider the effect on the partner. Given you can't know the effect of this volatile emotional cocktail on someone you don't really know very well, is it right to risk it for your own pleasure? I think not. YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
So in your experience, the article I linked to is wrong about numbers of sexual partners before marriage affecting quality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evensong

Actually, I picked up your post where you said that casual sex suppresses emotion or feelings. The word 'suppress' is actually a fairly loaded one, and also quite precise, (it's different from 'repress'), so is this what you really mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
So in your experience, the article I linked to is wrong about numbers of sexual partners before marriage affecting quality?

---

Let me just point out that even if the article is correct on that point, you're completely wrong to equate "more sexual partners" with "casual sex".

Surely you're familiar with the concept of serial monogamy, which will also get you more sexual partners.

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Am I my lover's keeper?

Perhaps I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:


I don't think that my responsibility goes much further than that. She is an adult, and I respect that she can make a decision too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Le Roc, thanks for your replies to my post. I see what you mean about 'casual'. Thank you. That's a very helpful definition.

When I use the word 'selfish', I suppose I mean my 'self' is at the centre of my experience. Rather than using selfish as a byword for some kind of nastiness. And maybe for some folks (married, single, monogamous, promiscuous) every sexual experience is almost entirely about their 'self'. I would say it's actually quite difficult to have any kind of sexually intimate encounter without there being some element of 'self-ishness' involved. The question perhaps then is how much of 'self' is there in the encounter, and how much of the partner's self? Maybe it doesn't even matter. The older I get, the less I know!

---

quote:

---

Anselmina: And maybe for some folks (married, single, monogamous, promiscuous) every sexual experience is almost entirely about their 'self'. I would say it's actually quite difficult to have any kind of sexually intimate encounter without there being some element of 'self-ishness' involved.

---

quote:

---

Leprechaun: Plus, my view is that a particular bond is created with someone by having a sexual relationship with them that creates a particular sort of emotional duty of care. But I can see that's not your view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you want to get mystical about it, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you want to get mystical about it, ...

---

I don't think I'll live long enough to even begin to want to get mystical about sex!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Good point about the double standard, a loathsome holdover from patriarchy and women-as-property.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: A number of the Christians on this thread have said that promiscuity can be okay, but do they recommend going through the members of one's congregation for this purpose, or is it something that's best kept well away from church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So church isn't terribly fruitful from this perspective. Do you have any idea why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I linked to the article above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I should admit that I'm fairly conservative on these matters (at least by the standards of this thread), but my general view, stemming from my Nonconformist background, is that if there are 1000s of denominations, catering to all forms of theological minutiae, there should be one or more that provide the kind of perspective that you're talking about here. In this sense, we can't really talk about a single 'church'.

The problem, however, is often that some of the biggest, and hence the most visible ones have to twist and manoeuvre in order to engage with the conflicting perspectives of all their committed members and their uncommitted or potential members. This is an impossible task, but it's their very size and reach that creates the hopeless level of expectation that surrounds them.

Meanwhile, in a secular age no one pays much attention to the 'exotic' smaller churches, some of which might well be offering the straightforwardly 'pragmatic, realistic advice' that you're talking about.

Maybe the Scandinavian Lutheran churches have a solution in that they're able to commit more fully to a 'pragmatic' agenda because they are paid for by the state, and hence don't have to worry about losing the patronage of a conservative membership. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Good point about the double standard, a loathsome holdover from patriarchy and women-as-property.

---

I just wanted to come back to this, as it's interesting.

Patriarchy is blamed for lots of things, but ISTM that the numerical dominance of women in church, and especially a fairly traditional and nurturing kind of woman, works against churches becoming an affirming space for promiscuity. (Some women are happy with it, of course, but tolerance levels seem to be lower for most women. For good evolutionary reasons, I should think.)

There may be mileage in church plants that aim to attract single young men by promoting the theological virtues of sexual variety! But who would they then have sex with? A number of the Christians on this thread have said that promiscuity can be okay, but do they recommend going through the members of one's congregation for this purpose, or is it something that's best kept well away from church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I’m not sure you can separate the physical from the emotional. Sex causes the brain to release oxytocin, which is known to have a role in pair-bonding/creating emotional ties between people. Maybe its effects are stronger for some people than for others?

Like orfeo, I get a big high out of playing music. But my brain isn’t being flooded with hormones to pair-bond me with my fellow musicians.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: So church isn't terribly fruitful from this perspective. Do you have any idea why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Coming back to casual sex, the same is true. If you want to tell people, in your role as pastor or minister, that sex outside marriage, is wrong, fair enough. But if you start spouting psychological bullshit, not fair enough; this is abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:


I don't want churches to affirm a particular form of sexuality (swinging for the win?) so much as I want 'em to ditch legalism, and affirm transferable values like mutuality, respect, and consent. Have 'em lay off the guilt already.

Right now, we've got the worst of all worlds, with platitudes and endemic hypocrisy, and minorities scapegoated to cover for the inability of the majority to keep it zipped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I linked to the article above.

---

Have you read the actual report?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Is masturbation in your list of activities that can't be done without psychological consequences?

---

I've read one too many Savage love articles about guys who get so used to masturbating to porn in a certain way that they have trouble reaching orgasm with a partner to say that it has no consequences.

Whether those consequences are less bad than the consequences of sexual frustration probably depends on the individual and the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

orfeo: Am I my lover's keeper?

Perhaps I am.

---

I find this an interesting question, and not just as a way of being adversarial on this thread.

---

Yes, I too find it interesting, which is I why quoted Leprechaun's post and commented in that particular way.

I have some sympathy for Leprechaun's views here, and find they have a great deal more food for thought in them than a knee-jerk "sex is special" response. However, I also have some agreement with something you've said a couple of times now about expectation.

My own experience, such as it is, is that a couple of sexual experiences I've had where both parties were clear it was casual were a great deal more enjoyable than a couple of sexual experiences I've had where it turned out to be casual and I'd thought it meant more than that. What caused a bit of distress was not the actual sex but the expectation around it.

This is in the early days of me coming out, so I was learning a lot (and I was also behaving with a "OMG I'm finally allowed to have sex" kind of enthusiasm) and I most definitely had some experiences that were A Bad Idea. Part of what I learnt is that I tend to romanticise... I'm going to import Myers Briggs here and note that my preferences are INFJ, which among other things means I'm very keen to ascribe meaning to things and to have meaningful experiences. So in my head I was trying to maximise how meaningful the sex was.

And, as I said, a couple of times when I, as a result of clear communication, was in a position where I didn't ascribe great meaning to the sexual encounter, and regarded it as an enjoyable shared experience with a person whose company I liked and who shared my sexual interests, it actually went a lot better and didn't leave any kind of psychological scars.

I think perhaps what I'm saying is that part of the reason why sex is so special and unique and all of that is because we keep treating it that way, not because there is some kind of objective demonstration that sex has unique biophysical and biochemical properties that make it unlike any other activity we carry out. It's deeply meaningful because we go into it thinking "this is deeply meaningful". If we go into it thinking "this is a pleasurable shared experience", then we come out of it (if it works right) thinking "that was a pleasurable shared experience".

And from that, I'd agree with you that it's better by far if the people involved in any particular sexual encounter go into it with shared or similar views about that encounter. But it of course doesn't follow from that that we must treat every sexual encounter we enter into in exactly the same fashion.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

The study is worth looking at, and it makes a useful contribution. But you can't just link to an article about a report on a study and say, "See, it's all right here."

---

quote:

---

The science of Slutology is still in its infant stages and Paik acknowledges that there have been very few studies done. He lists the previous work in the area and some of the mentioned papers have been presented on this blog previously.

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003).

Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

---

The blog is a bit weird as it seems to focus rather a lot on women.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Slutology?

The comparison toward the end of that blog entry of feminists and leftists to tobacco company lawyers doesn't exactly make it a trustworthy source.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Yeah. It's weird. But it does pull up some studies.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm glad that they said that premarital sex is linked with later divorce, and didn't say that it causes it.

This is the complexity of these associations. Undoubtedly, there are people who have problems with intimacy, and some of them have casual sex, as a way to avoid intimacy. However, you can't then say that the casual sex causes lack of intimacy.

And there are also people who don't have problems with intimacy, who have casual sex.

This is a bit like the famous 'chocolate makes you live longer', derived from 'people who eat chocolate live longer', an improper derivation.

There is also the important point that if you are working professionally with someone who finds intimacy difficult, and has casual sex, you have to be very sure-footed and sensitive. Saying that casual sex is going to mess them up is not wise.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Remember folks, 'virgin brides are the safest bet of all', (from the above link). Who's betting?
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
@orfeo: I mostly agree with your post. I'm just not sure if casual sex can't be 'unique and special' for the people involved.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Some thoughtful and thought-provoking stuff here.

I think I'm with Leprechaun. I'm pretty set against using people. It's a form of selfishness. And consent can be manipulated without recourse to anything illegal.

But the "sex is special" argument strikes me as more than a bit weird. Having sexual desire is just a normal part of what it means to be human. How we manage that says something about how we balance desire and responsibility. From that point of view, handling sexual desire falls into pretty much the general category of handling desire.

Too many people learn the Sheryl Crowe truth the hard way.

"If it makes you happy
It can't be that bad
But if it makes you happy
Why the Hell do you look so sad"
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Remember folks, 'virgin brides are the safest bet of all', (from the above link). Who's betting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Plus, my view is that a particular bond is created with someone by having a sexual relationship with them that creates a particular sort of emotional duty of care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you want to get mystical about it, ...

---

I don't think I'll live long enough to even begin to want to get mystical about sex!

---

Well, I think the point is that the little death just is mystical, well, not always. It shuts off big chunks of the brain, so you stop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Plus, my view is that a particular bond is created with someone by having a sexual relationship with them that creates a particular sort of emotional duty of care.

---

Can you expand on this a bit. What sort of bond? How do we know it's there? Does it happen for everyone?

---

I have no idea if it happens for everyone. I can only speak for my own experience and the experiences of friends and people I have worked with who have felt that. Plus the many references in pop culture etc. I remember in that (rather crap) film Vanilla Sky a character says "When you sleep with someone your body makes a promise." I think I concur with that.

I guess the thing about sex is that it is the physically most self exposing thing you can do. The biology itself is that you take the most private parts of your body and put them together. If people say they are able to do that "just for fun" I'm not going to say that's untrue - I just don't think you can guarantee that for the other person. Why risk hurting them at their most exposed?

Of course, I can't really agree with the premise of the OP because my theological views bleed into this here. Of course they do. Feel free to write off what I have said as an ex post facto justification of previously held dogmas.

[ 29. October 2014, 10:21: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with theological views on sex, casual sex, marriage, or whatever.

What is interesting is that the last 100 years, or probably more, have seen an increasingly secular approach to sexual problems.

In a way, this has involved a separation from moral issues; I suppose many Christians will decry this, yet for me, it is essential in helping people with their problems. If I start off by saying that casual sex is wrong, I have failed my client.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Plus, my view is that a particular bond is created with someone by having a sexual relationship with them that creates a particular sort of emotional duty of care.

---

Can you expand on this a bit. What sort of bond? How do we know it's there? Does it happen for everyone?

---

I have no idea if it happens for everyone. I can only speak for my own experience and the experiences of friends and people I have worked with who have felt that.

---

quote:

---

Plus the many references in pop culture etc. I remember in that (rather crap) film Vanilla Sky a character says "When you sleep with someone your body makes a promise." I think I concur with that.

---

quote:

---

I guess the thing about sex is that it is the physically most self exposing thing you can do. The biology itself is that you take the most private parts of your body and put them together. If people say they are able to do that "just for fun" I'm not going to say that's untrue - I just don't think you can guarantee that for the other person. Why risk hurting them at their most exposed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there's anything wrong with theological views on sex, casual sex, marriage, or whatever.

What is interesting is that the last 100 years, or probably more, have seen an increasingly secular approach to sexual problems.

In a way, this has involved a separation from moral issues; I suppose many Christians will decry this, yet for me, it is essential in helping people with their problems. If I start off by saying that casual sex is wrong, I have failed my client.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there's anything wrong with theological views on sex, casual sex, marriage, or whatever.

What is interesting is that the last 100 years, or probably more, have seen an increasingly secular approach to sexual problems.

In a way, this has involved a separation from moral issues; I suppose many Christians will decry this, yet for me, it is essential in helping people with their problems. If I start off by saying that casual sex is wrong, I have failed my client.

---

Indeed. After all, they're not paying you for your theology.

While Christians can and do work for the common good, I have problems with the idea that 'the church' is meant to influence the morals of believers and unbelievers alike. Why should non-believers be compelled to behave as though they were Christians? The logical outcome of this idea is that Christianity as a living faith is irrelevant, and only respectable behaviour matters. This is okay for a pluralistic society, at least in the short term, but previous generations of evangelists realised that it didn't serve the advancement of the gospel.

I say 'in the short term' because, of course, we've now reached the point where secular ideas are entering the church rather than church ideas entering the secular state. Hence the teaching that casual sex is okay for Christians (as well as for everyone else).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Plus the many references in pop culture etc. I remember in that (rather crap) film Vanilla Sky a character says "When you sleep with someone your body makes a promise." I think I concur with that.

---

Well.....yes but that's fiction

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I guess the thing about sex is that it is the physically most self exposing thing you can do. The biology itself is that you take the most private parts of your body and put them together. If people say they are able to do that "just for fun" I'm not going to say that's untrue - I just don't think you can guarantee that for the other person. Why risk hurting them at their most exposed?

---

You talk to the other person first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think there's anything wrong with theological views on sex, casual sex, marriage, or whatever.

What is interesting is that the last 100 years, or probably more, have seen an increasingly secular approach to sexual problems.

In a way, this has involved a separation from moral issues; I suppose many Christians will decry this, yet for me, it is essential in helping people with their problems. If I start off by saying that casual sex is wrong, I have failed my client.

---

Oh come on. No one starts any kind of therapeutic approach or any kind of pastoral care by starting off saying "you're wrong".

In the case of psychology, having a negative therapeutic opinion on casual sex would be unusual as it usually just seems to go along with contemporary social and cultural mores. Unless you were a Christian psychologist. Then you might be different.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Plus the many references in pop culture etc. I remember in that (rather crap) film Vanilla Sky a character says "When you sleep with someone your body makes a promise." I think I concur with that.

---

Well.....yes but that's fiction

---

If you think people feeling like that is only something that happens in fiction...well..you are wrong.

quote:

---

I mean you can't use scifi movies to strengthen vour argument. Otherwise I'd have a very compelling reason why you should believe I was abducted by aliens last week.

quote:

---

I guess the thing about sex is that it is the physically most self exposing thing you can do. The biology itself is that you take the most private parts of your body and put them together. If people say they are able to do that "just for fun" I'm not going to say that's untrue - I just don't think you can guarantee that for the other person. Why risk hurting them at their most exposed?

---

You talk to the other person first.

---

No kidding. My point all along has been that people say differently than they actually feel (or later realise they will feel) when it comes to sex for all sorts of reasons.

The question here seems to be - why resist the pleasure when the person says it's all fine with them? My question is - why risk hurting someone (as sex gone wrong really does seem to do) just for personal pleasure?

ISTM the safe place for self exposing intimacy is commitment. In that context sex does seem to solidify and express the commitment. I'm not sure just saying "it doesn't mean that in this case" ever totally removes that aspect of it. As I said above, others' mileage will vary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, let us say more of an understanding than a teaching. As I've already suggested, our priests and theologians are reluctant to teach it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's true, about secular ideas entering the church. You do find some priests and pastors on therapy training courses; I always wonder if they find it hard to switch to a more secular position.

Your phrase 'respectable behaviour' is important, I think. As I said earlier, I remember Freud's letters from the 1890s, where he savagely excoriated bourgeois society for forcing women to repress their sexuality, and often becoming ill in the process. Of course, the husband was probably in bed with the house-maid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
And im not sure it's always the case that people say differently from what they mean when it comes to sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What a daft question. As if all women were a single woman with only a single desire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
[diversion]
Victorian and repression. The argument I am aware of Victorians not being repressed about sex comes from Foucault. This is a complex argument where the concern about sexual behaviour and the public prudity about it actually meant that sex was talked about rather a lot in public settings. Indeed the Victorians could be seen as over concerned about sex in their wish to regulate it.

What relationship this public discourse has to actual practice is dubious. What is commonly held to be the modern equivalent "dying" has not managed to prevent everyone from eventually doing that.

Therefore it is useful to draw a distinction between the performed public discourse and individuals person behaviour.
[/diversion]

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What a daft question. As if all women were a single woman with only a single desire.

---

I don't think it is that there will be a single answer, but that the question wasn't being asked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
]Oh come on. No one starts any kind of therapeutic approach or any kind of pastoral care by starting off saying "you're wrong".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'd think women weren't human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'd think women weren't human.

---

Having just read the truly horrible comments section of a Youtube video intended to highlight the sexual harassment that women regularly experience as they walk down the street, I can't escape the conclusion that a very sizable number of males really don't believe women are human. Rather, they are a sophisticated mobile form of accessories for men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'd think women weren't human.

---

Having just read the truly horrible comments section of a Youtube video intended to highlight the sexual harassment that women regularly experience as they walk down the street, I can't escape the conclusion that a very sizable number of males really don't believe women are human. Rather, they are a sophisticated mobile form of accessories for men.

---

But surely Freud asked the question genuinely? I think he thought that women had a rough deal in Viennese society, partly because of double standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, das Weib is a generic phrase. I think he would equally have said der Mann, just as we say 'the cat is a solitary animal'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the English translation of 'das Weib' in that context, is 'women'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In the course of the conversation, Freud is supposed to have said this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

This pushes the same button for me as the guy years ago who gravely complimented (!) me with "You have a man's mind." I mean, WTF does that even MEAN?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Women were not supposed to have desire, but Freud said that they did (just remembered that you don't like him).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This pushes the same button for me as the guy years ago who gravely complimented (!) me with "You have a man's mind." I mean, WTF does that even MEAN?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm not especially interested in Freud-bashing as such. I'm just really, really disturbed at what I've seen earlier this evening in relation to attitudes to women. I live most of my life in a nice little sociological bubble where women seem to get treated as people as best I can tell, so right now I am particularly sensitive to the fact that this is not the universal female experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


I thought that there was some sort of controversy in the US, about evangelicals marrying very young, and frequently divorcing. I suppose they were all virgins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If Freud-bashing is about to begin, I am out of here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This pushes the same button for me as the guy years ago who gravely complimented (!) me with "You have a man's mind." I mean, WTF does that even MEAN?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
]Oh come on. No one starts any kind of therapeutic approach or any kind of pastoral care by starting off saying "you're wrong".

---

You don't think so? If a parishioner approached me to say that he was in an adulterous relationship, the first words out of my mouth would be something like "You know you need to get out of that right away, don't you?"

I guess that's not exactly "You're wrong," more like "What you're doing is wrong, and you know that."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh come on. No one starts any kind of therapeutic approach or any kind of pastoral care by starting off saying "you're wrong".

---

quote:

---

Evensong
In the case of psychology, having a negative therapeutic opinion on casual sex would be unusual as it usually just seems to go along with contemporary social and cultural mores. Unless you were a Christian psychologist. Then you might be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Evensong
In the case of psychology, having a negative therapeutic opinion on casual sex would be unusual as it usually just seems to go along with contemporary social and cultural mores. Unless you were a Christian psychologist. Then you might be different.

---

The psychology orientation is usual to not burden the other person with the therapist's issues. The client or patient's issues are the focus, and while the value base of the shrink can't help but be a factor (something as simple as the ring on the finger to indicate 'married'), it must not be the focus nor influence the therapy. When it does, it is probably inappropriate self disclosure and time for the psychologist to see some supervision and consultation. Thus, the Christian beliefs of a Christian psychologist are not to burden the patient. It's nothing about the 'going along with contemporary values', but a basic fact of appropriate therapeutic stance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This pushes the same button for me as the guy years ago who gravely complimented (!) me with "You have a man's mind." I mean, WTF does that even MEAN?

---

You're lucky you heard it only once. When I was in college sixty years ago, many men said that to me. They thought they were paying me a compliment, but as far as I was concerned, they were telling me I was a freak.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
In theory yes. In practice it's a simply ridiculous idea that the therapist can be some kind of tabula rasa.

Claiming to be "value free" or "judgement free" is a ridiculous notion. Even pretending the absence of a dogmatic system of thought is in itself a value statement and a judgement of what is important.

Psychology has just as many axioms and systems of belief as any other system of thought even if it's just "it's all about you" or "anything goes as long as you're the focus".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You miss the point. It's about being aware of your issues, preferences and values, and not having them impact. It's nothing about blank slate, rather it's not burdening, and a managing of the relationship between therapist and patient/client.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

You're already remonstrating the client with your question.

You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

Why should it matter what the other person feels?. You're making a judgement right there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

---

I don't think you understand what "neutrality" actually means. Or certainly, you're not using it accurately here when you're suggesting that it's equivalent to something "not mattering".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

You're already remonstrating the client with your question.

You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

Why should it matter what the other person feels?. You're making a judgement right there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

You're already remonstrating the client with your question.

You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

Why should it matter what the other person feels?. You're making a judgement right there.

---

Why should another person matter? Well, there's no point in working as a therapist if you don't think that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

You're already remonstrating the client with your question.

You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

Why should it matter what the other person feels?. You're making a judgement right there.

---

Why should another person matter? Well, there's no point in working as a therapist if you don't think that.

---

You implied here and here that you did not judge people in relation to their sexual activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

You're already remonstrating the client with your question.

You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

Why should it matter what the other person feels?. You're making a judgement right there.

---

Why should another person matter? Well, there's no point in working as a therapist if you don't think that.

---

You implied here and here that you did not judge people in relation to their sexual activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Over wine and duck the other night to celebrate a friend's engagement, one of my guests quizzed the Guest of Honour on her number of conquests over the years (sufficiently numerous to have surely reaped her confessor performance pay). In her reply, she noted that they had all trained her, not only in practical aspects, but to be more her, and to equip her to be able to recognize the person with whom she would spend her life.

She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

What a lovely way to think about other people, as glasses of wine to be tried out, then discarded as mediocre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

What a lovely way to think about other people, as glasses of wine to be tried out, then discarded as mediocre.

---

I think that it was a metaphor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

What a lovely way to think about other people, as glasses of wine to be tried out, then discarded as mediocre.

---

I think that it was a metaphor.

---

The metaphor you choose to represent something says something about what you think of the actual thing, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It also sounds quite comedic to me, if you are saying to your future husband, there have been poor vintages and sour ones, but now in you, I have found my champagne.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:


She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

What a lovely way to think about other people, as glasses of wine to be tried out, then discarded as mediocre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's still a consumerist metaphor, however you cut it. And I think that's Lep's point.

And I think it's a good one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's still a consumerist metaphor, however you cut it. And I think that's Lep's point.

And I think it's a good one.

---

ISTM people are, perhaps, getting a bit to hung up on the metaphor and missing the point.
Relationships are trials. Sometimes the first one is enough, but you try until you find one that works. If your attitude is that you must go through many, I think that wrong. But I think it a practical reality that you likely will go through more than one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And if good sex is primarily where it's at for you, isn't that just another form of consumerism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And if good sex is primarily where it's at for you, isn't that just another form of consumerism?

---

I'm not entirely sure I see a difference between asserting that a desire for good sex is a form of consumerism, and asserting that a desire for a satisfying relationship is a form of consumerism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And if good sex is primarily where it's at for you, isn't that just another form of consumerism?

---

I'm not entirely sure I see a difference between asserting that a desire for good sex is a form of consumerism, and asserting that a desire for a satisfying relationship is a form of consumerism.

---

I'd be just offended by the metaphor if it was about trial and error in the whole relationship rather than just sex. Trying out is, IMHO, not something one should actually do to people.

I think the sex thing is significant - because there you are saying "I tried you out at your most vulnerable and exposed and you were still mediocre." I have seen a lot of people really hurt that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]But then how do you learn about relationship? If trying out is not allowed, then you will marry the first person you are attracted to. Well, good luck with that. I think it would be good business for me as a therapist; I would be flooded with people whose marriages have failed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]But then how do you learn about relationship? If trying out is not allowed, then you will marry the first person you are attracted to. Well, good luck with that. I think it would be good business for me as a therapist; I would be flooded with people whose marriages have failed.

---

I think there's quite a lot of possibilities for getting to know someone between "marry the first person you are attracted to" and "try them out to see if you rate them as poor, mediocre or excellent."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]But then how do you learn about relationship? If trying out is not allowed, then you will marry the first person you are attracted to. Well, good luck with that. I think it would be good business for me as a therapist; I would be flooded with people whose marriages have failed.

---

I think there's quite a lot of possibilities for getting to know someone between "marry the first person you are attracted to" and "try them out to see if you rate them as poor, mediocre or excellent."

---

Oh come on, you are being over-literal about that. It was a jokey speech using wine as a metaphor.

---

quote:

---

So what are these possibilities? You are saying that it's wrong to try out relationships, so I'm puzzled as to how people are going to get to a point of commitment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Maybe this is one reason that US evangelicals have the highest divorce rates?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, the counsellor might ask about the other partner, who is being betrayed, and how that strikes the client. But if you start remonstrating with the client, you are overstepping the mark.

---

You're already remonstrating the client with your question.

You're implying that it matters. You're showing your cards of non-nuetrality.

Why should it matter what the other person feels?. You're making a judgement right there.

---

Why should another person matter? Well, there's no point in working as a therapist if you don't think that.

---

You implied here and here that you did not judge people in relation to their sexual activities.

---

I'm sorry, Evensong, I really don't know what you are on about. Have you got some animus going about therapy, or about me? You seem to be just looking for ways to trap therapists or counsellors, and I can't see what you are driving at.

---

quote:

---

In a way, this has involved a separation from moral issues; I suppose many Christians will decry this, yet for me, it is essential in helping people with their problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Maybe this is one reason that US evangelicals have the highest divorce rates?

---

I'm not sure how you parse "willingess to divorce" as "commitment."

But anyway, as I have said several times above, I'm not trying to write a rule book for anyone else. I personally am not happy to adopt an approach to other people that involves experimenting with their intimacy. I personally wanted to be safe to show the deepest parts of my personality in a context where someone was not going to reject me for that, and I wanted to provide that context for whoever was opening up to me.

I guess because I have adopted that approach it's because I think it's better, but I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to live their life except to say - be careful with others, they are fragile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the evangelical approach seems to lead to early marriage, since if you adopt the adage of 'commitment before intimacy', given the high degree of sexual feeling in young people, they are going to get married, in order to have sex, aren't they? I'm not saying that's the only reason, but it is probably one reason. But early marriages are more likely to break down, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the evangelical approach seems to lead to early marriage, since if you adopt the adage of 'commitment before intimacy', given the high degree of sexual feeling in young people, they are going to get married, in order to have sex, aren't they? I'm not saying that's the only reason, but it is probably one reason. But early marriages are more likely to break down, I think.

---

I'm certainly not advocating "accelerate commitment in order to get intimacy" either.

To add to my last point I guess I have been saying ; "be careful with people, they are fragile, particularly when it comes to sex they are often more fragile than they say, or even know." Hence the wine metaphor got me riled.

Anyway, I really do have to sign off now for some time - so if I don't reply it's not because I'm not interested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that possibly one thing that accelerates commitment in a culture of abstinence, is that young people want sex, well, most of them do, and they want it quite strongly. If they think that marriage is the only way to get it, they will get married. And possibly this leads to early divorce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that possibly one thing that accelerates commitment in a culture of abstinence, is that young people want sex, well, most of them do, and they want it quite strongly. If they think that marriage is the only way to get it, they will get married. And possibly this leads to early divorce.

---

Is there any rigorous research in this field? As I think has been noted upthread, there are common factors between those who tend to get married young and those whose marriages are more likely to end in divorce (poverty is one such factor, IIRC).

Obviously, this doesn't mean that getting married young makes the marriage more likely to end in divorce, although it might still mean marrying young isn't a good idea for people in that situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Over wine and duck the other night to celebrate a friend's engagement, one of my guests quizzed the Guest of Honour on her number of conquests over the years (sufficiently numerous to have surely reaped her confessor performance pay). In her reply, she noted that they had all trained her, not only in practical aspects, but to be more her, and to equip her to be able to recognize the person with whom she would spend her life.

She said that it was like learning about good wine-- she had to drink a few mediocre bottles, and some of grapes and regions which perhaps diverted her but were not really to her taste, before she understood a good vintage which worked for her.

---

quote:

---

Aren't people who have sex before marriage happier than people who can't get any?

Actually, premarital sexual behavior has the potential to negatively affect your emotional and mental health. Early sexual activity and having multiple sexual partners is strongly associated with increased depression,11 greater likelihood of maternal poverty, and higher rates of marital infidelity and divorce in future marriages.12

Sexual activity in both men and women involves the release of powerful bonding hormones that are designed to help married couples stay together permanently and trust each other.13

Within marriage, these bonds are a cause of joy and marital harmony; but for non-married couples, such bonds can cause serious problems. When these relationships come to an end, the partners often feel a palpable sense of loss, betrayed trust, and unwelcome memories. This is information that you will rarely hear from sexual health groups that promote safe sex, because "there is no condom for the heart."14

---

quote:

---

Very little is known about the influence of sexual timing on relationship outcomes. Is it better to test sexual compatibility as early as possible or show sexual restraint so that other areas of the relationship can develop?

In this study, we explore this question with a sample of 2035 married individuals by examining how soon they became sexually involved as a couple and how this timing is related to their current sexual quality, relationship communication, and relationship satisfaction and perceived stability.

Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think any decent therapy training will bring them out, so that you are aware of your own stuff. For one thing, any decent training will make you do a ton of therapy for yourself, otherwise, forget it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm particularly interested to see there might be some scientific basis behind the view that sex strengthens / changes the bond between two people in a way that other activities and commitments do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...lost my virginity....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship. Good sex, purely as an exercise in "athleticism" shall we say, is no guarantee of a good relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...lost my virginity....

---

This has always seemed an unusual concept, at least even since an American president insisted he didn't have sex when it seems he did.

What exactly do you lose anyway? Or is it a gain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship. Good sex, purely as an exercise in "athleticism" shall we say, is no guarantee of a good relationship.

---

And here is part of the problem. The belief that a committed relationship will generate good sex.
Sex is an activity. As such, some people will be better at it than others.
Expecting great sex just because you love someone is like expecting to be a great footballer just because you desire to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship. Good sex, purely as an exercise in "athleticism" shall we say, is no guarantee of a good relationship.

---

And here is part of the problem. The belief that a committed relationship will generate good sex.
Sex is an activity. As such, some people will be better at it than others.
Expecting great sex just because you love someone is like expecting to be a great footballer just because you desire to be.
A relationship can factor both positively and negatively in sex.
I would agree that, between two particular people, a good relationship can enhance their overall sexual experience over the course of that relationship.
But to say the best sex one can have is necessarily in a relationship or that loving someone will result in great sex is unfounded.
These expectations do not help a relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship.

---

And here is part of the problem. The belief that a committed relationship will generate good sex.

---

Are you responding to some other part of Barnabas62's post? Because in this bit he didn't claim what you're refuting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...lost my virginity....

---

This has always seemed an unusual concept, at least even since an American president insisted he didn't have sex when it seems he did.

What exactly do you lose anyway? Or is it a gain?

---

I have no intention of discussing at any length what I have and have not done so that we can decide exactly what constituted "sex". I stand by my previous statement, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that possibly one thing that accelerates commitment in a culture of abstinence, is that young people want sex, well, most of them do, and they want it quite strongly. If they think that marriage is the only way to get it, they will get married. And possibly this leads to early divorce.

---

Is there any rigorous research in this field? As I think has been noted upthread, there are common factors between those who tend to get married young and those whose marriages are more likely to end in divorce (poverty is one such factor, IIRC).

Obviously, this doesn't mean that getting married young makes the marriage more likely to end in divorce, although it might still mean marrying young isn't a good idea for people in that situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship. Good sex, purely as an exercise in "athleticism" shall we say, is no guarantee of a good relationship.

---

And here is part of the problem. The belief that a committed relationship will generate good sex.
Sex is an activity. As such, some people will be better at it than others.
Expecting great sex just because you love someone is like expecting to be a great footballer just because you desire to be.
A relationship can factor both positively and negatively in sex.
I would agree that, between two particular people, a good relationship can enhance their overall sexual experience over the course of that relationship.
But to say the best sex one can have is necessarily in a relationship or that loving someone will result in great sex is unfounded.
These expectations do not help a relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...so wait, you're placing significance on the fact that there's a particular word for the absence of sexual history?

Okay, but the list of things that can only be done for the first time once is... basically everything you've ever done in your life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that possibly one thing that accelerates commitment in a culture of abstinence, is that young people want sex, well, most of them do, and they want it quite strongly. If they think that marriage is the only way to get it, they will get married. And possibly this leads to early divorce.

---

Is there any rigorous research in this field? As I think has been noted upthread, there are common factors between those who tend to get married young and those whose marriages are more likely to end in divorce (poverty is one such factor, IIRC).

Obviously, this doesn't mean that getting married young makes the marriage more likely to end in divorce, although it might still mean marrying young isn't a good idea for people in that situation.

---

I apologize for not taking the time to scout up the reference, but a recent study I have read indicated that there were strong similarities across the religious spectrum in terms of pairing/unpairing-- iow, young people in their early 20s have a strong tendency to form sexual relationships that do not last more than a few years. In the abstinence crowd this tends to be early marriage followed by divorce; in the non-abstinence crowd this tends to be living together followed by break-up. Both groups often produce children during these short-term relationships. But other than the legal entanglements of marriage/divorce, the two groups are remarkably similar. I'm not sure you can condemn the early marriage/divorce paradigm as any more ill-advised than the living together/break-up paradigm-- or vice-versa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( bemused absorption of thread)

I have to admit, I can't make it far past the thread title, to which the obvious response is:

1. Depends on the situation.
2. Depends on the person.

I can't even bring myself to say," casual sex is generally not a problem," because boy-- see numbers 1 and 2. I do think handing that decision over to a rulebook is relieving people of the responsibility of figuring out how they, personally want to answer the question.

So, for me, casual sex is a problem. I can't physically enjoy myself with someone unless I am relaxed with them. That means getting to know them, the times I have tried to force the issue on myself-- to have sex when I knew I wasn't ready, just because I figured it was time to give it a try, I have wound up disappointed in myself. Ignoring my own sexual needs is being unkind to myself, and it is no better for me to be unkind to myself than it is for me to be unkind to anyone.

But I know there is a world of people out there who are not me, and he idea of spending even two seconds evaluating what they might do strikes me as unbearably arrogant. It is not my life. The other side of owning your choices is you really have to leave others to theirs*.

---

*Terms and Conditions about consent and physical harm apply. But yes, all of this post reflects my thinking.

People have ALWAYS checked each other out before committing to each other. This used to be in the hands of their parents, and used to apply to community external items such as wealth or social status. Now the prospective partners check each other out, and they are generally looking for personal and internal items - honesty, humour, sensitivity, compassion, respect, loyalty, etc.

Sexual activity has become another way of checking each other out, since sexual activity gives insight into these internal goods. Will my partner respect my body? Respond with sensitivity? Be honest about preferences? etc.

In the therapeutic realm, I think it's foolish to make the inclusion of one's own sensibilities a binary matter: the options are more than either "impose them or remove them." ISTM that therapy begins like anthropology. You are Margaret Mead, sitting and listening and watching and learning about the other's worldview and culture. That is what it means to withhold judgment. Charging in with assumptions about your own superiority is a sure way to fuck things up.

Or, another analogy: a physician, a general practitioner, sees many different kinds of people. Let's say that undertaking casual sexual relationship is like lifting an extremely heavy weight. Most of the doctor's patients can't do it without hurting themselves, but some can. A doctor who shuts the hell up and listens might eventually say, "You know, Mrs. Smith, since you're ninety and have osteoarthritis, do you think lifting such heavy things is a good idea for you?" But for the doctor to make this an absolute rule doesn't make sense for those who are able to do this without hurting themselves.

This is a long way of saying, "It depends."
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It merely highlights sex as a special something versus, say having your first cup of coffee, first day of school, and other things. I think many of us recall their first sexual experience more clearly than many other first experiences, and I suppose it is an empirical question beyond my speculation that sex is objectively different than other joint human activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Now, if someone asks if you've tried something, a common negative response is, "No, I'm a (something) virgin".

---

Point illustrated.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
I was thinking of things like bubble tea or snowmobiling, but yeah, that works too.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I'm having trouble comparing haircuts and sex, mainly because it doesn't involve nerve endings quite the same way.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship. Good sex, purely as an exercise in "athleticism" shall we say, is no guarantee of a good relationship.

---

And here is part of the problem. The belief that a committed relationship will generate good sex.
Sex is an activity. As such, some people will be better at it than others.
Expecting great sex just because you love someone is like expecting to be a great footballer just because you desire to be.
A relationship can factor both positively and negatively in sex.
I would agree that, between two particular people, a good relationship can enhance their overall sexual experience over the course of that relationship.
But to say the best sex one can have is necessarily in a relationship or that loving someone will result in great sex is unfounded.
These expectations do not help a relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: So church isn't terribly fruitful from [the casual sex] perspective. Do you have any idea why not?

---

Probably the low number of single women of around my age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'm having trouble comparing haircuts and sex, mainly because it doesn't involve nerve endings quite the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sorry, comparing linguistically doesn't capture it. Nerves. Visceral. No impediment to the marriage of minds and spirit. Incandescent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best sex flows out of a good relationship.

---

And here is part of the problem. The belief that a committed relationship will generate good sex.

---

Are you responding to some other part of Barnabas62's post? Because in this bit he didn't claim what you're refuting.

---

Seems exactly on point to me.

---

Thanks for your explanation. The connection is crystal clear now.

Here, let me try to do a parity-of-form and see if you get why this is a non-sequitur.

Person A: The best beer comes from Germany.
Person B: So you're saying anyone drinking in Germany is guaranteed good beer?

or another:

Person A: The best cheese comes from Wisconsin.
Person B: So you're saying anyone eating cheese from Wisconsin is guaranteed great cheese?

Perhaps one last one:

Person A: The best arguments on the web are found on the Ship of Fools
Person B: So you're saying every argument on the Ship of Fools is a good one?

[ 01. November 2014, 00:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( bemused absorption of thread)

I have to admit, I can't make it far past the thread title, to which the obvious response is:

1. Depends on the situation.
2. Depends on the person.

I can't even bring myself to say," casual sex is generally not a problem," because boy-- see numbers 1 and 2. I do think handing that decision over to a rulebook is relieving people of the responsibility of figuring out how they, personally want to answer the question.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:


The second so called Harvard paper is a piece written on a blog by a student society trying to change the way students hook up - so not lacking in bias that one, not a bit of bias in that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Not sure how you can get that kind of benefit from a casual encounter. After all, how well do you know the other person? I guess all you really know is that there is some kind of chemistry at work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ mousethief

Yes. The best beer, cheese and arguments need to be made with care. Mutuality and unselfishness are signs that caring is in play. Chemistry provides no such guarantees.

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS: Young adults who engage in casual sexual encounters do not appear to be at greater risk for harmful psychological outcomes than sexually active young adults in more committed relationships.

---

quote:

---

People assume that monogamy is beneficial for those involved in monogamous relationships, their families, and even society. We hope that researchers will empirically scrutinize the construct of monogamy and its relative benefits to assess whether this rosy perception is warranted.

---

quote:

---

the lack of an adequate and consistent definition of the construct of monogamy and consider how common monogamy is. Next, we address perceived benefits of monogamy and whether those ostensible benefits are supported by empirical evidence. We conclude that evidence for the benefits of monogamy relative to other relationship styles is currently lacking, suggesting that, for those who choose it, consensual non-monogamy may be a viable alternative to monogamy.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, a sizeable minority of people engage in CNM and report high levels of satisfaction

---

quote:

---

Sexually unfaithful participants demonstrated significantly lower rates of protective sexual health behaviors both within their primary partnerships and during their extradyadic sexual encounters. Sexually unfaithful participants were also less likely to engage in frequent STI testing, and less likely to discuss safer sex concerns with new partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Not sure how you can get that kind of benefit from a casual encounter. After all, how well do you know the other person? I guess all you really know is that there is some kind of chemistry at work.

---

The advantage a casual encounter can have is no past, no expectations of the future. The now is all. This, with the right partner, can be freeing. And that freedom can contribute greatly to the pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's after a quick Google.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I can see how a casual encounter might turn out like that. But doesn't that make it a bit of a crapshoot?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

If you gamble a few times on the throw of a dice, or the performance of a horse in a race, that's just about money. If you get hooked on that, you're playing with your future. You might be better off investing your resources in something more solid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I can see how a casual encounter might turn out like that. But doesn't that make it a bit of a crapshoot?

---

Yep. A bit like longer term relationships, IME.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

If you gamble a few times on the throw of a dice, or the performance of a horse in a race, that's just about money. If you get hooked on that, you're playing with your future. You might be better off investing your resources in something more solid.

---

Or you put a down payment on a home without truly knowing the town in which you have decided to live. All relationships are a gamble, whether for one night or the rest of your life.
Much depends on the attitude and expectations of the participants. But there is no guarantee.
Understand, you will find few people more enthusiastically joyful when encountering people in good, long term relationships. I am a fan. But I think many of the attitudes against casual relationships are often based upon preconceptions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible in the first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I seriously doubt that. I suspect there is more variation between individuals than between genders. What would be the evolutionary function of such a difference ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sorry, comparing linguistically doesn't capture it. Nerves. Visceral. No impediment to the marriage of minds and spirit. Incandescent.

---

You're just shifting goalposts here. No-one was talking about comparing the sensory qualities of sex and haircuts. They were talking about the fact that having a special word like "virginity" is not a quality unique to sex.

Basically you're coming across as absolutely determined to depict sex as the pinnacle of human experience, which is frankly quite a strange position to take in a Christian context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible in the first.

---

I love my wife and we have sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible in the first.

---

I love my wife and we have sex.

---

I am of course very happy for you, and anyone else who enjoys sexual contact in a relationship where love has come to reside.

---

quote:

---

It's just that many of us have experienced life a way that makes such matters anything but clear-cut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible in the first.

---

I love my wife and we have sex.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I seriously doubt that. I suspect there is more variation between individuals than between genders. What would be the evolutionary function of such a difference ?

---

It has to do, I should say, with who rocks the cradle. Which evolutinarily speaking is women. So given the possibility (probability) of pregnancy and childbirth and (prior to very recent times) possible death in childbirth, a woman has more at stake. A man can walk away from a pregnant woman. Not so easy for a pregnant woman to walk away from a pregnancy. A man can find another woman to impregnate if any given woman carrying his seed dies in childbirth. A woman who dies in childbirth can't go find another man. Because she's dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On crapshoots, you have a good point of course. I think the difference I would draw is this.

A casual encounter is always going to be a crap shoot. Embarking on a long term relationship often is as well, but it doesn't have to be. You can take the trouble to find stuff out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Curiosity. Do you ever look past the cover of a book?

The references on that blog are interesting. The twelfth one in particular:

Robert Rector et al., "The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners among Women: A Book of Charts," Heritage Foundation (2003).

---

quote:

---

is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I know the movies just jump cut from buying the first drink at the bar straight to bouncing up and down on the bed, but I doubt that's actually how it happens in most cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Romantic idolatry is a set up for the object of worship to become the object of resentment.It is not loving them at all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That doesn't make them incompatible. Sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Curiosity. Do you ever look past the cover of a book?

The references on that blog are interesting. The twelfth one in particular:

Robert Rector et al., "The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners among Women: A Book of Charts," Heritage Foundation (2003).

---

Evensong: do you ever consider the sources of your links? You have cited a source from the Heritage Foundation which, as Wikipedia notes,

quote:

---

is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".

---

The Heritage Foundation is upfront about its purpose and biases, which I suppose is good. But in matters of sexual ethics, I would rank their credibility as only slightly above NAMBLA.

---

I looked at their study and it was based on CDC research. I vote Labor and am a theological liberal but (as you know) a social conservative. When the shoe fits.....
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I looked at their study and it was based on CDC research.

---

Now we know what they were doing when they should have been preparing for an Ebola outbreak.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I like you. So I won't go there.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
He didn''t love her, he idolized her. A teenage girl should not be expected to bear the weight of anyone's idolatry. That was part of the point of the film-- that what he designated the nexus of ideal female sex was in reality a mixed up kid. She was a person, , not some Jungian archtype for him to play with. What she really needed was to see her for what she was and reach out to her as a person-- which is what he did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

Sex can be healing, it can be nurture, sharing, empowering, pleasurable, even addictive. Sex can be a wealth of things. That alone though does not make it inextricably, and exclusively bound up with love.

There is, ISTM, something inherently unloving surrounding sex, admittedly it's buried deep but I often think it gives itself away in the, now generally accepted, phrase 'Having sex'. If this were not so then why are there so many people who can testify to being in relationships where they believed mutual love existed, where they knew the sex was great yet, for some inexplicable reason, the relationship ends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
There is, ISTM, something inherently unloving surrounding sex, admittedly it's buried deep but I often think it gives itself away in the, now generally accepted, phrase 'Having sex'. If this were not so then why are there so many people who can testify to being in relationships where they believed mutual love existed, where they knew the sex was great yet, for some inexplicable reason, the relationship ends?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sex is not just a procreative function, or a tension relese function, although it is both these things, and can be used as such. it is also a biological tool to strengthen pair- bonding and kinship ties-- in the same way any other act of physical affection is. ( if you ever get a chance to watch otters around springtime-- yowza) If you care about someone emotionally, and you nurture the mammalian need for skin contact, " grooming", nonverbal communication of all kinds (anything from a smile to a hand- squeeze to a kiss) and sexual release-- boom, you have sex with love. You have two people biologically attuning themselves to each other, voluntarily, toard the purpose of strenthening their existing pair- bond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I've experienced a tendency before on the Ship to assign sex a particular function and not allow it other functions, but that has usually been in the context of Ingo arguing that sex must be 'ordered to procreation'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

I guess it is possible to have sex without any trace of simple affection-- would not appeal to me, though-- and simple affection is a far cry from love. But simple affection is the seed you need to water to grow love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I've experienced a tendency before on the Ship to assign sex a particular function and not allow it other functions, but that has usually been in the context of Ingo arguing that sex must be 'ordered to procreation'.

---

A mental image pops to mind of a Marine drill sergeant shouting at two people having sex: YOU! PROCREATE! I ORDER YOU TO PROCREATE!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sex is not just a procreative function, or a tension relese function, although it is both these things, and can be used as such. it is also a biological tool to strengthen pair- bonding and kinship ties-- in the same way any other act of physical affection is. ( if you ever get a chance to watch otters around springtime-- yowza) If you care about someone emotionally, and you nurture the mammalian need for skin contact, " grooming", nonverbal communication of all kinds (anything from a smile to a hand- squeeze to a kiss) and sexual release-- boom, you have sex with love. You have two people biologically attuning themselves to each other, voluntarily, toard the purpose of strenthening their existing pair- bond.


I am a fan of the show " Masters of Sex" , and in the last season they covered a fairly famous incident in which Masters, after a couple years of fairly acrobatic sex, became impotent. Making things more acrobatic did nothing to help. He and Johnson were emotionally invested enough to want to solve the problem, so after a variety of unsuccessful stratagies, they discovered that the road back was simple affection without the pressure of sex. For weeks they did nothing but hold, "groom" and cuddle each other. Slowly things came back to normal.

To this day, the first respose treatment of couples with differences in sexual appetite is to refocus the bulk of their efforts on simple affection-- to use it as an end in and of itself.

I guess it is possible to have sex without any trace of simple affection-- would not appeal to me, though-- and simple affection is a far cry from love. But simple affection is the seed you need to water to grow love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to KA & quetzalcoatl.

That intimacy of which you speak, the bonding, the affection, are not mutually exclusive with casual sex. Not even with a one-night stand.
Obviously it cannot be as deep as a longer term relationship, but this does not mean it cannot exist.
Ever have a bonding moment with a stranger in a queue, at a festival, etc? A connection which livens your spirits, warms your soul. A connection you'll remember though you never see the person again? Sometimes those connections are special, not in spite of their transitory nature, but because of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sex is, at its root, a biological function. But in our species it is not typically that simple. Does sex require love? No. But to say there is something inherently unloving in it is a step to far.
Even in the casual hook-up, there is usually some sort of connection. Not love, but neither is it unlove.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to KA & quetzalcoatl.

That intimacy of which you speak, the bonding, the affection, are not mutually exclusive with casual sex. Not even with a one-night stand.
Obviously it cannot be as deep as a longer term relationship, but this does not mean it cannot exist.
Ever have a bonding moment with a stranger in a queue, at a festival, etc? A connection which livens your spirits, warms your soul. A connection you'll remember though you never see the person again? Sometimes those connections are special, not in spite of their transitory nature, but because of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
it's a good thing I made a big point not to say that, then, because I certainly do think there can be casual sex with affection. I was challenging rolyn's assertion that love and sex are mutually exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

As for the pros and cons of bringing up children in a closed environment, I've never been entirely convinced that the 50s model necessarily produced a generation of well-balanced, loving, ambitious and happy individuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

As for the pros and cons of bringing up children in a closed environment, I've never been entirely convinced that the 50s model necessarily produced a generation of well-balanced, loving, ambitious and happy individuals.

---

Well, it is complicated. Cultural expectation and structure certainly seem to affect the development of children. Studies I've read indicate a child with two active parents has a better chance of being a well-balanced adult. Cultures in which the extended family more actively participates, this is less significant.
Again, expectation.

---

What do you mean by expectation? You expect children of married parents to do better than de facto or single parents so they do?


 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
A man knocking on the door of a brothel is knocking for God.

NOT Chesterton, SS. Francis or Augustine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Studies I've read indicate a child with two active parents has a better chance of being a well-balanced adult. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The brothel I had in mind was not one housing residents who were under-aged, nor one holding individuals against their will.
Furthermore the man was knocking in anticipation, no one said anything about the door opening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

In conclusion the more I think about the more I'm convinced it's the manner in which male and female stereotype each other that keeps us trapped in seemingly endless mortal combat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
I usually try apply the rule of thumb of what other people do in their personal lives is their business alone, therefore any resulting psychological problems which may or may not arise is for them to deal with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
The more I muse over this this thread and the notion of 'sex without love' the more I begin to wonder if sex and love are ever even compatible in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Again, if you believe this, I am curious as to why you have a tendancy to start statements with things like," you have to understand that men want/ need/ think..." I, for one am glancing upthread and seeing direct evidence that not all men fit into the pigeonholes you yourself are creating.

---

I think I understand some of what rolyn is trying to get at here, but I'm genuinely baffled by this response. Where does he start statements with "you have to understand that men want/ need/ think?"
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Anselmina. Swear I replied with complete acknowledgment and the comment that both are right.

We yearn. And do foul things in our yearning. And no lilBuddha, all will be well. EVERYTHING is redeemed.
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
God is undoubtedly within the hearts of all these people but I seriously question that the john is particularly hopeful of finding Him there when he's on a quest to get his rocks off.

---

I've known a few women who don't share my wacky religious beliefs about podvigs and theosis and whatnot who have worked as strippers and prostitutes. One of them described working as a prostitute as being like cotton candy; you're constantly pulling yourself apart and giving little bits of yourself away and you can only do it so long before there's nothing left.

On the other hand, they describe the johns as not being sex-crazed monsters but simply extremely lonely extremely socially awkward people. The way they describe them it almost sounds like untreated Aspergers to me: they sound like people who need to be given very clear rules to follow and can't cope with social situations and meeting people and engaging in sexual behavior in situations where the rules are all bendy and context dependent.

I suspect that that's what the quote is getting at.
 

---

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
Re the relationship between sex and love. They are two different things. They interrelate in many different ways and to an extent unique to the individual and to the couple. There can be an aspect of sex that is about affection between two people; two people that have just met or known each other for 50 years (hopefully ) and all situations in between. This affection can be rooted in love or a mutual appreciation. There is an aspect of sex which is rooted in the care of the other person and in their pleasure to the possible exclusion of their own temporary pleasure. There is also an aspect of sex that is rooted in selfishness which is when your own pleasure is front and foremost in your mind and quite possibly to the exclusion of the other persons pleasure. Sometimes you don't get to this state though.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0