Posted                      

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".

---

Posted                      

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.)

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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...)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Enoch: What about the other person involved?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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                       

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?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

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.)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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...)

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Squidgy ?

---

Posted                          

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?

---

Posted                       

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.