Causal sex

Do you feel sex should lead to something? Or is more about the process itself / the state of being?

By "something" I mean orgasm, babies, a relationship, whatever you want it to be.

everything's causal

Is it?

some sex is undertaken in the carnal pursuit of the sublime, the Perpetual Orgasm, the state of unending bliss which forever eludes us

some sex is undertaken in the quest for Shared Experience and consequent Love

the latter is usually better sex

casuist sex

some sex is undertaken in the quest for Shared Experience and consequent Love

Are these really interdependent? What about shared experience / human contact / interlocking of desiring machines without the (often ideologically defined) Love? Is lesser/worse?

times you just wanna fuck too

In other words a "casual mac"

It's OK to want different things, from different people, or from different situations, or at different stages of your life.

There is no ~one single meaning~ to sex. Many different emotional narratives can be imposed on the act.

It's OK to have a preference, or even to say that some kinds of sex work for *you*, and others don't. But the whole thing about preferences is that they are not universalisable. At this stage of my life, I take the VU sentiment on this: no kinds of love are better than others.

Are these really interdependent? What about shared experience / human contact / interlocking of desiring machines without the (often ideologically defined) Love? Is lesser/worse?

― Tuomas, Tuesday, 15 April 2014 11:06 (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Those are all forms of Love. The Greeks had three words for Love; we are shackled with one (and its various approximate synonyms)

There is no ~one single meaning~ to sex. Many different emotional narratives can be imposed on the act.

I agree with the first part, but does sex necessarily have to have a narrative attached to it at all? Couldn't you say it's one of those few states where we can completely escape narrativity (and causality), if we want to?

It is not possible to escape narrative. Even "there is no narrative here" is still a narrative.

There is nothing outside the sext.

It is not possible to escape narrative. Even "there is no narrative here" is still a narrative.

I don't think I agree...? Sure, when describing things, like we do here, escape is probably impossible, but I was talking about the state of sex, itself when it's actually happening, eluding meaning.

Saussure says that all is imposed externally onto the signified of the sext except the mobile phonemes.

i prefer effectual sex

Tried to change my views on fwb/casual sex in your 30s (my stance is that they're a bad idea) recently, only neither of us had a condom so we just made out for a couple of hours and cuddled overnight - now it's text-flirting and talking about where we'll move when the climate change apocalypse sets upon us (apparently Detroit is a solid option for climate change amelioration). Ooops.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-25720-bustin-makes-me-feel-good-gif-1lTI.gif

i like casual snacks

times you just wanna fuck too

― recommend me a new bagman (darraghmac), Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:16 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

purest form of sex

Ray Parker Jr. otm

Do you feel sex should lead to something? ... By "something" I mean orgasm, babies, a relationship, whatever you want it to be.

Setting aside my suspicion that this thread was started just to satisfy the impish urge to write "causal sex", and further setting aside my literalist answer that engaging in sex will always lead to "something", if only some feeling about the relative quality of the sex, I will treat this within the terms set by Tuomas.

imo, having sex which excludes every consideration of intimacy, iow sex that is deliberately isolated from 'leading anywhere', is going to erect a barrier to your ability to have intimate sex each time you indulge in it. And that is just sad.

How does not leading to something exclude "every consideration of intimacy"? Isn't sex in itself one of the highest states of intimacy? How would non-causality negate that intimacy?

If you already have a relationship with the person in question, then having sex with them will alter that relationship, thus 'leading somewhere'. If you have no relationship with the person to begin with and you intend not to have one after the sex is over (otherwise it would 'lead somewhere'), then the sex partner becomes more of an insubstantial outline of a person, a certain amount of skin, some words and sounds.

This doesn't meet my own criteria for intimacy. Although the other person is real enough, there is not enough of them present to be intimate with beyond your own projections onto that relatively blank screen.

OK you will never be gay.

Granted.

At least w/casual sex your tails don't get in the way and the incidence of tiara-related injuries just plummets.

The word Tuomas cunningly avoided, but slyly invoked is 'casual'. Casual intimacy is something of an oxymoron.

casual sex kind of a strange concept since it's kind of the necessary contrary for a belief in true & perfect love/intimacy. all of this suggests the heartwarming possibility that the biggest casual sexers are simply true romantics.

I've had fulfilling 'casual' sex and, provided that you're an attentive and responsive lover, I see nothing particularly wrong with it. It may not immediately lead to the deepest intimacy but there's no reason why you can't begin to learn about someone intimately while fucking, or dining or working or any end of activities that rely on collaboration.

I see nothing particularly wrong with it.

I agree, but only to an extent. It is not immoral or 'wrong' to have a brief connection with someone which also includes sex. My point was that the more often one chooses casual sex as one's usual and desired form of sex, the harder it will become to have sex in any other mode. Frequent casual sex becomes, imo, sad, and I stick by that.

There is nothing outside the sext.

― emil.y, Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:31 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At least w/casual sex your tails don't get in the way and the incidence of tiara-related injuries just plummets.

― J'ai toujours préféré la folie des passions à la sagesse de (Michael White), Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:24 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

both of my serious relationships began w/sloppy drunk sex and grew from there so I don't know if I really 'get' casual sex

probably easier when you travel a lot for work or something, idk

yeah idunno i think these days you just start with the sex and then whatever happens from there happens

maybe they disappear, maybe you get married, who knows

who knows, indeed

Have we even defined casual sex itt

casually

whatever happens from there happens

the distinction being not whether it should lead somewhere, but whether it could lead somewhere. that 'should' seems odd and bothersome.

anything could lead somewhere

Im eight years in to this relationship sex doesnt get much more casual than that id say

If you already have a relationship with the person in question, then having sex with them will alter that relationship, thus 'leading somewhere'. If you have no relationship with the person to begin with and you intend not to have one after the sex is over (otherwise it would 'lead somewhere'), then the sex partner becomes more of an insubstantial outline of a person, a certain amount of skin, some words and sounds.

This doesn't meet my own criteria for intimacy. Although the other person is real enough, there is not enough of them present to be intimate with beyond your own projections onto that relatively blank screen.

― Aimless, Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:21 PM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OK you will never be gay.

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:21 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

Literally never felt good about casual sex. It always felt empty and "wrong". Lol Catholic.

I definitely had some baggage about the idea in my past, but times definitely change

causal? didn't cause me to think any differently about anyone involved. I guess it was non-causal sex.

i prefer effectual sex

― k3vin k

this deserved more play

If you swapped sex with tennis in that post enbb, ive completely lost track of my point

I'd take the catholic guilt version over the idea that you've turned someone into an "insubstantial outline of a person" with your actions

sorry, I can't speak to you, because I don't want a relationship and you're now less than nothing

wow, hotbed of opinions itt!

great thread

Casual tennis?! The barabarians are no longer at the gates. They own the place.

how about the idea that sex is actually better with people you *don't* love or have any particularly intense feelings for. you rarely hear much from that side of the argument. there's a whole bit in, of all places, Alan Bennett's Untold Stories book on this matter.

Mr. White, it was evident to me that our esteemed darraghmac was suggesting that ENBB might wish to play a few rubbers of tennis (or whatever you tennisers call them) in exchange for casual sex, which thought apparently so flustered him that he lost his 'point'.

I've never had sex w/ someone I haven't dated for at least 2 months but that may change soon *shrug*

wtf Aimless

Calm thyself, mh. M White and I are old dipsomaniacs and we understand one another by a wink and a nod, when all around us are losing their heads.

this deserved more play

― Aimless,

so did you but you said no

I can't believe this thread isn't about causal sex

I dont play tennis well enough tbh

Is that some kind of euphemism, darragh?