Casual Sex a Con

[eighballsidepocket]

I don't care what many think, when folks have sexual intercourse, there's a type of bonding that happens, and it isn't free and fun and something that people walk away from with no "strings" attached.

Sex is a total transparency of one individual to another in a very vunerable way, physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual way. Call it casual, but there is something built into our human psyche that doesn't call it to be casual. I think we only try to make it seem casual, to alleviate the "committment" that is associated with giving totally, one to another, in the sexual act. The act may/will start initially before Coitus with sexual attraction and all that, but once the act is taking place and consumated, there is a whole different part of the Psyche that takes charge. No doubt there's guilt especially when it's extra marital, and no doubt there's guilt as our consciences are inborn with a "right and wrong" sense from our Creator. Just read the first chapter of the book of Romans in the New Testament. We have all been given a sense of right and wrong without even the exposure to the 10 commandments.........We have a conscience, and it gets pricked everytime we transgress God's laws. Yet the more we transgress the less our consciences seem to "prick" us. Actually, it's because we are becoming "hardened" inside to God's voice. Then we come to the point of just seeing sexual intercourse as "casual", with no regret, concern or magnitude of the actual act that we just involved our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual being in.

[Powerman]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you.

Humans are animals and animals are not hardwired to be monogamous. I don't think it's terribly difficult for humans to be monogamous if we find someone that we can spend the rest of our life with however.

But take my situation for instance. I'm single and I'm really not ready to get settled down. I have a year of college left and don't want a female tying me down after I graduate. But that being said, my sexual drive is still in full force. If women want to have casual sex with me I'm not going to chase them off.

All that being said, if I did meet a very special girl in the near future I'd probably look into a serious relationship. Just doesn't seem to be in the works for me right now. I have some other goals that I'm trying to accomplish and love can come later.

[Dilloduck]

Casual sex DOES hurt women more... at least more OBVIOUSLY. Look at the emotional symbolism of the physical act. The man seeks to enter, to gain acceptance. He seeks to please his partner and to gain release. Once the sex act is completed, he has attained his goals. He has been accepted. He has achieved.

But the woman must first GIVE, before the act even takes place. She must open herself up and allow entrance. She must TRUST before the act is completed. She may get physical pleasure out of the act, but the emotional benefits? A woman wants a sense of VALUE out of sex. She has opened her most intimate self, and she wants to feel special, valued, protected. These emotional benefits take place AFTER the act is over. If the partners go their separate ways, how is she to gain these benefits?

Feminists have told women that it's all in fun, that we should just enjoy the ride. But, after opening ourselves, how are we NOT supposed to feel abandoned? Women can numb themselves to the bad feelings after repeated engagements, but they are still there, underneath. And in refusing to withhold herself until she is with a partner who values her, the woman is telling herself that she doesn't need to be valued.

As a result, women very often embitter themselves against men, as a defense mechanism. They seek to devalue the men whom, in their eyes, have devalued them. We now see a society in which men are held as bumbling dopes, unworthy of their superior wives/girlfriends. This is how casual sex hurts men, too.

The way the emotional mechanics of sex are SUPPOSED to work is this: A man seeks acceptance, and the woman opens herself in trust. Once opened, the man protects her vulnerability by staying with her, making her feel valued (the stereotypical "will you HOLD me?").

Now comes the part feminists absolutely HATE. This is the part that men who engage in casual sex miss. When a man sticks around and makes his wife/woman feel valued, he gains her ADMIRATION. Yes, women can actually LOOK UP to men and ADMIRE them. And men like to be admired, so they place more VALUE on women who admire them. See how that works?

Casual sex ruins it for everyone. I won't even get into the effects on kids.

A woman wants a sense of VALUE out of sex. She has opened her most intimate self, and she wants to feel special, valued, protected. These emotional benefits take place AFTER the act is over. If the partners go their separate ways, how is she to gain these benefits?

I think this probably explains why more women feel hurt by "casual" sex. ( whatever THAT is).
Shouldn't one's sense of value and acceptance come from somewhere else other than sex? Are you saying that a man that you do not have sex with cannot make you feel valuable ? Seeking to be admired by people is something Anna Nicole Smith engaged in. It' empty.

[Nienna]

I think this probably explains why more women feel hurt by "casual" sex. ( whatever THAT is).
Shouldn't one's sense of value and acceptance come from somewhere else other than sex? Are you saying that a man that you do not have sex with cannot make you feel valuable ? Seeking to be admired by people is something Anna Nicole Smith engaged in. It' empty.

Okay, dillo... I'll bite.

I think women feel hurt more often by casual sex because men have at least part of their needs/deeper desires fulfilled when they are accepted in the act of sex. The women's fulfillment doesn't begin until afterward. Casual sex denies women the chance for that.

I wasn't only talking about sex, but also about sexuality. This is an emotional thing; the physical act of sex is merely a symbol for what takes place within a person. I'm talking about the "male ego," and why it is so fundamental for a man to feel accepted and admired. I am talking about why a woman try to "catch" a man (because of her need/desire to be unique in value to him). It is the interaction of the complementary needs/desires that can make sex so fulfilling or so destructive.

As for value? If sex or a sex partner is the ONLY source of value and acceptance, a person is just begging to be hurt. A person cannot be well-rounded if the sexual/romantic relationship is the ONLY relationship in which he/she is involved. The best source of value is God. But God (or Nature, in others' minds) created us to be social beings. We cannot live completely independently of others. There are several types of love and relationships; the "highest" types are the least self-focused. However, sexual love is not the "highest" type. Within sexual love, there are intrinsic needs/desires, as well as the wish to give. This is the design of the sexual or romantic relationship. It is meant to be a partnership (as opposed-for example- to the parent/child relationship, in which one party does the vast majority of the giving). A person who tries to live independently inside this relationship will find himself with problems, because he is denying the nature of the relationship.

[Dilloduck]

Okay, dillo... I'll bite.

I think women feel hurt more often by casual sex because men have at least part of their needs/deeper desires fulfilled when they are accepted in the act of sex. The women's fulfillment doesn't begin until afterward. Casual sex denies women the chance for that.

I wasn't only talking about sex, but also about sexuality. This is an emotional thing; the physical act of sex is merely a symbol for what takes place within a person. I'm talking about the "male ego," and why it is so fundamental for a man to feel accepted and admired. I am talking about why a woman try to "catch" a man (because of her need/desire to be unique in value to him). It is the interaction of the complementary needs/desires that can make sex so fulfilling or so destructive.

As for value? If sex or a sex partner is the ONLY source of value and acceptance, a person is just begging to be hurt. A person cannot be well-rounded if the sexual/romantic relationship is the ONLY relationship in which he/she is involved. The best source of value is God. But God (or Nature, in others' minds) created us to be social beings. We cannot live completely independently of others. There are several types of love and relationships; the "highest" types are the least self-focused. However, sexual love is not the "highest" type. Within sexual love, there are intrinsic needs/desires, as well as the wish to give. This is the design of the sexual or romantic relationship. It is meant to be a partnership (as opposed-for example- to the parent/child relationship, in which one party does the vast majority of the giving). A person who tries to live independently inside this relationship will find himself with problems, because he is denying the nature of the relationship.

No--we cannot live independently from others however it is up to us to determine how we choose to interact with them both sexually and non-sexally. When the act of consenual sex has hidden agendas and symbolism attached to it, people are bound to be dissappointed. It's not a magic wand that once sex occurs, all the the significance that one has place on it are guaranteed to occur also. I think many expectations people have on sex are better attained elsewhere.

[Nienna]

No--we cannot live independently from others however it is up to us to determine how we choose to interact with them both sexually and non-sexally. When the act of consenual sex has hidden agendas and symbolism attached to it, people are bound to be dissappointed.

You are claiming that these symbols are "attached." I am claiming that they are intrinsic.

It's not a magic wand that once sex occurs, all the the significance that one has place on it are guaranteed to occur also. I think many expectations people have on sex are better attained elsewhere.

Of course it isn't a magic wand. All people have emotional issues that complicate sex and sexuality. Emotional needs CAN be met outside a sexual/romantic relationship. People CAN be content, healthy, well-rounded without involvement in a sexual relationship. However, if one chooses to enter such a relationship, it is wise to consider the nature of the relationship.

[Dilloduck]

You are claiming that these symbols are "attached." I am claiming that they are intrinsic.


Of course it isn't a magic wand. All people have emotional issues that complicate sex and sexuality. Emotional needs CAN be met outside a sexual/romantic relationship. People CAN be content, healthy, well-rounded without involvement in a sexual relationship. However, if one chooses to enter such a relationship, it is wise to consider the nature of the relationship.

We do disagree on the intrinsic vs attached (innate-learned) nature of emotional expectations regarding the sexual experience. No doubt one will be more satisfied with the sexual experience if the partner shares the same expectations and is aware of ALL that is expected as a result of the womens' submission.

[Nienna]

We do disagree on the intrinsic vs attached (innate-learned) nature of emotional expectations regarding the sexual experience. No doubt one will be more satisfied with the sexual experience if the partner shares the same expectations and is aware of ALL that is expected as a result of the womens' submission.

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

[darin]

Ah HA! Just as I suspected. You buy into the sexual revolution lie. It's a lie told by men to women, and by women to themselves. The lie says two things:
1) We can decide our morality for ourselves. There is no objective meaning outside and beyond our own will.
2) Women are being "kept down" by being in a "submitted" relationship to a spouse.

Number 1
Suppose I walk up to you and slap you in the face. Will not an emotional reaction follow? Will you not feel hurt or angry? Is this not an intrinsic reaction? Does it not occur naturally? You do not decide through conditioning that a slap is hurtful. It just is. Through repetition and training (or numbing), one CAN make oneself believe that a slap does not cause hurt or anger, or even that a slap is pleasurable. But, one must first overcome the connate meaning of the action.

If there is innate meaning in a slap, why would there not be innate meaning when a man enters a woman?

In order to make people desire to overcome the natural emotional reaction, they must come to believe that there is reason and value in denying it, and sometimes there is value in overcoming natural tendencies. However, the sexual revolution did not overcome; it simply swung the pendulum to the other side.


More after I get my kids off to school...

(Dillo is the kitty)

[Nienna]

Number 2
No doubt there was a need for reform in the way women were treated, historically. Why should women not be allowed to vote, own land, compete for jobs, etc? Whether one accepts the Bible's authority or not, one cannot deny its influence on traditional Western culture. The Bible bids women to "submit" to their husbands, but it does not place ALL women under the authority of ALL men. Also, the Bible says to "submit," not to obey unconditionally. There is a chain of authority, and if a husband removes himself from under the authority of God, the wife is no longer bound to submit in that specific circumstance (while the husband is out of God's will... she should still submit to him in other areas that do not oppose God's will). She is still responsible to God's higher authority.

In the old culture, men took their authority too far, placing all women under all men, and restricting even wives' activities further than was natural. So rebellion began.

But the rebellion has gone too far. Now, instead of opposing the authority of unjust husbands, women oppose the authority of God in denying their very nature. Instead of RESTORING the natural order, women seek to trample the needs of men, to kill the very thing that would fulfill them in a sexual relationship.

This "submission" is not one-sided. Husbands are also told to submit to their wives in the Bible. Husbands are told to give themselves for their wives' protection. Husbands are told to treat their wives with EXTRA consideration, respect, honor, and modesty, more than they would ask for themselves. I tell you, if a man's goal is to treat me like that, I don't have much problem "submitting" to him!

Two people can certainly attempt to engage in a cerebral, "genderless" partnership, but this will not be fulfilling for the vast majority of people in a sexual relationship. The very nature of the relationship, the fact that men and women have different needs, causes people to desire something different in a sexual relationship than in any other partnership.

[darin]

if a husband removes himself from under the authority of God, the wife is no longer bound to submit in that specific circumstance.

Absolutely untrue. As long as the husband doesn't ask/require the wife to do something CONTRARY to God and her Faith, she should STILL submit. Said another way, The only circumstance to which she should NOT submit is a circumstance where a husband asks her or requires her to do something Contrary or in violation of God's Word. The circumstance of her husband not being a believer, or not having placed himself under God's Authority - is NOT a cause for the wife to not-submit.

[Nienna]

Absolutely untrue. As long as the husband doesn't ask/require the wife to do something CONTRARY to God and her Faith, she should STILL submit. Said another way, The only circumstance to which she should NOT submit is a circumstance where a husband asks her or requires her to do something Contrary or in violation of God's Word. The circumstance of her husband not being a believer, or not having placed himself under God's Authority - is NOT a cause for the wife to not-submit.

I edited. And you are missing the main point of what I was trying to say.

[darin]

I edited. And you are missing the main point of what I was trying to say.

I want you to be clear in what you mean. What you wrote wasn't clear. Your Edit makes it more clear, however. That's what I'm saying. Your initial comments suggest "as long as man is outside God's authority - in THAT circumstance (the circumstance that a husband is outside of God's authority) a wife should NOT be submissive.

[Hagbard Celine]

What if you and your girl have sex because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing its symbolism because you have lives? What about that kind of sex?

[darin]

What if you and your girl have sex because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing its symbolism because you have lives? What about that kind of sex?

What is you and your girl sit around and do Acid because it feels good and you don't sit around afterward discussing it's symbolism because you have lives?