Article - Is casual sex immoral? - on sex positivity and its effect on women

[Goosefoot]

I thought people might find this an interesting article - I'll come back and give my thoughts later but there are plenty of interesting ideas in there.

unherd.com/2020/11/is-casual-sex-immoral/

@Louiselhrau

it's easy to see why sex would be regarded as kind of disgusting. Genital, and oral, secretions are as dangerous as blood or faeces when it comes to passing on pathogens, and humans naturally avoid coming into contact with pathogens. The sex drive has to be powerful to overcome that innate avoidance

There's no 'innate' avoidance of sex and no natural barrier to avoid secretions due to pathogens! My lord, it's only been a century or so that we've even known about 'pathogens' nevermind how they're spread.

But there is an innate avoidance of bodily fluids of a kind, despite not knowing the science of pathogens.

And there is an innate avoidance of sex, look at children, they find the idea disgusting when they first learn of it, its only when the sex drive kicks in and overrides it that they feel desire. And even then most people only feel desire for a few select people out of all the possibilities. Women less than men, generally. Many, even most people do feel a visceral revulsion when forced to consider sex with someone they find unattractive.

Building on my last post - I live with my OH and we raise our DC in an atmosphere of (mostly!) love, care and stability but I often wonder how we’ve ended up, as a society, with the assumption you need to find just one person who you can not only have a fulfilling sexual and romantic life with over decades, but also maintain an abiding friendship with AND both be on the same page making and successfully carrying out a variety of administrative, logistical and financial decisions.

I can very much get behind the need to recognise the psychological and biological risks of casual sex, but do they only seem morally abhorrent because we place this insane amount of pressure on the functions a monogamous romantic relationship is supposed to provide in our life? It’s quite unusual across cultures and history to expect a single romantic relationship to provide all this when you stop and think about it

Romantic love usually means that people have a very strong desire to share the love from that relationship with other people in their lives. It would be very difficult to conduct a prolonged loving relationship and never introduce that person to your children. There would be a high risk of the romantic partner feeling distress at such compartmentalisation as well.

There seems to me to be a difference between two people, neither of whom are in a relationship, having casual sex, and the (usually) man who repeatedly cheats on his wife or long term partner.

I don't think the point of the article is a out whether casual sex is immoral. It's about whether it's immoral to encourage girls and young women to unquestioningly believe a narrative about casual sex that may be damaging to them, while clearly benefiting males.

^This. It might be different if sex positivity were being espoused in a society where women were genuinely considered equal to men l, and had been for centuries, in the sphere of relationships and expectations sexual behaviour. But that still isn't the case and we don't really even seem to be heading in that direction.

As long as we still live in a world where young women feel pressured to perform (often porn-inspired) sexual acts they don't want to perform in order to keep a man interested in them or maintain a relationship (while this would rarely be expected to do the same in order to kerp a woman interested), or simply to not seem like a prude, it's not a level playing-field, so casual sex can hardly be considered universally empowering or positive for women.

it’s quite unusual across cultures and history to expect a single romantic relationship to provide all this when you stop and think about it

Actually this couldn't be further from the truth in fact marriage of two people together in which to raise children is on err of the only aspects that has been NORMAL cross culturally and throughout the vast majority of human history! It's actually the base upon which most cultures are based especially christianity.

I’m not saying monogamous heterosexual marriage hasn’t been the norm - but the assumption the should be the singular primary romantic, sexual, logistical relationship of our lives (and I’m not arguing the alternatives have always been very palatable - such as men having semi-formalised mistresses etc)

@PlanDeRaccordement

Casual sex itself is not immoral, but in my opinion it is a risky recreational activity for women. There is no such thing as safe sex because there is always a risk of disease (causing discomfort, to infertility or even death), pregnancy and/or emotional damage. Men have some risk too, but to a lesser degree than women. This is why the men who wish to engage in casual sex will always exceed the number of women who wish engage in casual sex. Which in turn causes prostitution and sex trafficking and these are truly immoral. I do agree with the article that consent is a low bar to determine whether sex is a good choice for the two parties or not. But it confuses ulterior motives and manipulation or coercion into sex with casual sex itself.

I agree with this so much. And younger women especially are vulnerable because they’re just starting their lives and pregnancy and/or emotional damage can derail them.

There's no reason now that two women can't enter into a marriage or civil partnership with absolutely no sexual element, is there, and then arrange their 'romances' (or casual shags) however they wish.

(Somewhat OT but I think there should be an explicitly non-sexual form of civil partnership available, which could be used by siblings. There are many quite tragic cases of such couples being adversely affected because their relationship has no legal status.)

Yes, the sibling element is very important. Any two people should be allowed the protection of a civil partnership.

I'm not concerned about whether casual sex is morally ok or not ok. The issue is around ground rules and expectations. Is using another person as merely a means ok. Men say they are not concerned with whether a casual partner is satisfied, basically it's the same issue as prostitution, the woman is merely a means. Most women get little sexual pleasure from one off encounters. This is the nub of the problem that Lib Fems have ignored.

Journalist Peggy Orenstein reached out to young women to talk about sex and concluded that many are missing out on the pleasures of intimacy because they live in a world that confuses being sexualized with being sexually fulfilled.

www.fandm.edu/news/latest-news/2017/03/31/acclaimed-author-peggy-orenstein-talks-sex-pleasure-and-intimate-justice

‘Is using another person as merely a means ok.’

So are you saying that there are moral and immoral ways of having casual sex? Perhaps casual sex is moral if it is between friends who care about each other but don’t intend to pursue a relationship?

I don't think the point of the article is a out whether casual sex is immoral. It's about whether it's immoral to encourage girls and young women to unquestioningly believe a narrative about casual sex that may be damaging to them, while clearly benefiting males

Still think you could say the same about marriage.

And look at the wedding industry - girls are taught to romanticise marriage from a very young age.

More specifically, I think the article was saying that it's wrong to lie about one's intentions and the purpose of the sex. As in, men pretending that they are in for the long-haul when they just want a shag.

I'm on the fence. I've had a lot of casual sex over the past six months. Some of which left me feeling shit about myself (usually when it was all give and no take, which left my feeling used), some of which has be fantastic.

I have without a doubt had the best sex of my life since being single, without "catching feelings" in all but one case. But then that individual was someone I was dating rather than casual sex, so it's a moot point.

The key is having casual sex with people who are willing to explore their sexual side with you as opposed to someone who just wants a quick lay. Tinder guys tend to just want a legover, which results in a disappointing experience. The majority of guys I have sex with are from FabSwingers, who really fucking love having sex and giving pleasure. This kind of casual sex is amazing and not immoral at all.

Marriage is supposed to be romantic, so everyone who grows up knowing a loving married couple or seen people fall in love and get married will be taught to romanticise it.

Marriage is supposed to be romantic, so everyone who grows up knowing a loving married couple or seen people fall in love and get married will be taught to romanticise it

It's pushed though. It's the fairytales, it's the dream of girls in books and in moves and so on. Girls are taught about Charming Princes and white fluffy dresses and all that shit.

What many actually get is bad sex (because he doesn't give a fuck and is more used to wanking to porn), the expectation that they will live their lives for him and be his housefrau before being ripped off and dumped for a younger model.

@Stripesnomore

Casual sex has become the way in which women attempt to find a committed partner. That is bound to leave many women very distressed, as they are becoming intimate and emotionally and physically vulnerable with a casual sex partner- things they morally want to do within a committed relationship.

I think that this is a really important point. Some seriously toxic relationships begin in this way.

We can’t discount the impact of biochemistry on women. I am referring to the case of an ongoing casual sex scenario, not a one night stand where no details are exchanged and neither will see the other again.

If a woman does orgasm then she will experience all the emotional responses related to the release of hormones that go along with that, oxytocin and dopamine. Biochemically then as women we can feel “in love” with this person and that hormonally induced feeling of love and trust over rides rational decision making about what kind of person this is and how we are being treated. Rushing quickly into a sexual relationship with a man we haven’t vetted rationally can put us in a position vulnerable to coercive control and other abuse or at the very least leave us in a relationship which doesn’t and never will meet our needs. We’ll be trapped, wasting time for the 18months to 2 years that it takes for the hormonal rush to wear off, and longer if some other trap has kicked in in the meantime, abuse, a baby, moving in together, getting married.

So I don’t think that casual sex works in favour of women generally, if we don’t know the man at all and never see him again then we are unlikely to have a satisfying sexual experience and the risks are great, if we know him socially already (and maybe feel some attraction) or meet regularly for sex the risks of the hormonal impact clouding our judgment are great.

Sex in humans is not only about reproduction, it induces bonding, we would do well to be choosy about who we bond with!

Well indeed my marriage terribly.

But for many people it does work out, and it is the highest romantic ideal for many people. It is pretty incredible that very many people don’t divorce. So if you want it you really have to go for it.

Sorry, I meant my marriage ended terribly!

So are you saying that there are moral and immoral ways of having casual sex?

I would - but there are also 'moral and immoral' ways of having non casual sex.

The act itself may be about as moral or immoral as ballroom dancing.

Daisy- yes, the biochemical impact coupled with the fact that many people really want to experience love.

But for many people it does work out, and it is the highest romantic ideal for many people. It is pretty incredible that very many people don’t divorce

Romantic marriage is a new phenomenon and limited only to some parts of the world. Marriage has traditionally been mostly economic.

I strongly suspect that many people don't divorce because they can't be bothered even though they live separate lives - or they can't afford it.

It's pushed though. It's the fairytales, it's the dream of girls in books and in moves and so on. Girls are taught about Charming Princes and white fluffy dresses and all that shit

Worse than that, its pushed as romantic to be stalked and kissed against your will even if you are in a coma and cant consent...

Again I think this whole save yourself for marriage thing is something that only benefits men. As you say, if they are shit in bed you won't know any better and are then stuck...

Men are almost afraid of women being confident and experienced in their sexuality. I mean those women do when you wanna get laid but they will still.look for someone they deem more "virtuous" to date or marry...

I am assuming we are talking about the morality of marriages taking place now in our own society.

We’re not referring to, for example, the horrors of child marriage in other parts of the world.

If a woman does orgasm then she will experience all the emotional responses related to the release of hormones that go along with that, oxytocin and dopamine. Biochemically then as women we can feel “in love” with this person

I think casual sex can be bad for women because of societal/inequality reasons. I hadn't considered it biologically. But then I don't really recognise that description of falling in love because of the hormones released during sex at all tbh. I cannot remotely imagine feeling romantic love for someone as a direct result of having an orgasm. Maybe I'm just weird.