Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

orfeo: Am I my lover's keeper?

Perhaps I am.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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!

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

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

---

Have you read the actual report?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                          

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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                          

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---