The 'hook up' culture

[GeratTzedek]

I'm afraid, that if I get married, she won't want to have sex with me after five years. but fear I shouldn't live in crediblly I suppose.

All I have to go on are what you post here in these forums, which I understand is a very small part of your life (I hope), but I am becoming concerned with the number of "fears" you are voicing, and the fatalistic attitude you have towards acceptance by women.

 

[mpok1519]

I am concerned too. needless to say, I have had little luck with women. I hope thats not my fate though.

 

[PassionFruit]

In failed relationships its mostly the woman who leaves, but its the man who usually 'screws up'. ~shrug~ go fig.

I don't know, my first relationship I was the one who was dumped.

I am concerned too. needless to say, I have had little luck with women. I hope thats not my fate though.

Perhaps it isn't your fate.

 

[mpok1519]

We'll see, but I need to work on my career first....

 

[cantata]

<snip>

She thought it over. "Well, I can think of one thing. Since Thanksgiving, I've had a "friend with benefits." And actually I'm kind of confused about that."

"Really? Tell me more."

"Well, I met him at a party. And I really like him. But there's this problem. I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, becuase if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused because it seems like I don't get the "friend" part, but he gets the "benefits."

Right, so here we have a prime example of someone for whom a friends-with-benefits arrangement isn't working out. Her 'friend' isn't playing the game, and she is being exploited.

Well guess what? There are thousands examples of people for whom monogamous marriage arrangements aren't working out. Their partners take them for granted, or they feel isolated and lonely, or their sexual relationship deteriorates, or there are thousands of other things that can go wrong. Does that mean marriage is an inherently unhealthy practice? No. It means that it works for some couples and it doesn't work for others. Same goes for any relationship.

You have given an example of someone who is depressed because her friends-with-benefits arrangement is not how she would like it to be. It is, in short, an example of a bad arrangement - an arrangement where the two partners involved do not want the same thing. Any relationship where the people involved do not want the same thing will be depressing. So I fail to see how this shows anything at all about the nature of friends-with-benefits arrangements in general. If the people involved both want a close friend with whom they also have sex, that can work out. Or, if they both want a casual sex partner with whom they don't spend much other time, that can also work out. I feel sorry for this girl in your example, because she obviously wants the former while her friend wants the latter - which means that she should probably find a new friend.

 

[quatona]

Exactly. As far as the story is told here, it clearly shows that there is something going wrong in their relationship: At least one of the persons involved is frustrated and dissatisfied. Their ideas, expectations and or ideals of their relationships don´t match. Bummer - that happens millionfold daily all over the world. The person dissatisfied would be well advised to do something about it.

However, the poster posted this story in the context of the question of casual sex, and from the description of the book and this context I am assuming that this story is meant to make a case against casual sex.
Unfortunately, the part where the author or the poster reason their way from the story to the conclusion that the problem must be blamed on casual sex is missing entirly.
So far they have come up with nothing that suggests the blame being on "casual sex" rather than on, say "going shopping together".

No argument, nothing to discuss.
The idea of casual sex is not that people who don´t want casual sex should engage in it. So I don´t hold my breath when waiting for a sound reasoning from this story to "casual sex is a problem". People not being aware of their needs is a problem. People not communicating clearly and early is a problem. People engaging in things they don´t want to engage in is a problem.

 

[cantata]

The idea of casual sex is not that people who don´t want casual sex should engage in it. So I don´t hold my breath when waiting for a sound reasoning from this story to "casual sex is a problem". People not being aware of their needs is a problem. People not communicating clearly and early is a problem. People engaging in things they don´t want to engage in is a problem.

QFT!

I agree that there is a problem if young people feel under pressure to have casual sex when they would prefer something else. But what about people who do actually want to have casual sex and can find other people who want to have it in the same kind of context as they do? Seems to me that they're not in trouble at all!

 

[HaloHope]

Firstly, thanks for your explanations, HaloHope.
Secondly, and just to get that out of the way once and for all: I am working from the assumption that neither of us wants to convince the other or change his attitude towards sex. You don´t come across as judgemental, and I hope neither do I.

Not at all and you are correct

We could easily conclude that we just feel differently - no problem.
Yet, once you have tried to give some sort of rationalizations (which on top occasionally go a bit beyond making mere statements of personal preferences) I am trying to understand this reasoning.
I can live with people having different feelings just fine, but I am frustrated when I don´t understand a supposedly reasonable/rational line of thought.
So my reason for asking all these question is primarily my wish to understand something I don´t understand (and possibly can´t even understand).

O.K

It´s not like I am unfamiliar with your approach to it - it is the predominantly held view in our societies, after all.

Indeed it is, although as a rule I don't tend to go along with what society treats as usual or abnormal, this is the one exception I can think of.

If you want to walk a mile in my shoes you can do that easily by reading your post, imagining someone else had written it, and replacing "sex" by, say, "playing a tennis match with someone".
If you are willing to do that I am pretty sure you find out why your answers do not help me one bit in understanding.

Definately, its hard for me to explain where I am coming from.

I am wondering how you know that. I am also wondering what "couldn´t" practically means.
In the attempt to understand this, the closest I can come is comparing it to my heterosexuality. I never had the desire to sleep with a man, but I wouldn´t know why to replace "I don´t desire to..." by "I could not...", partcularly since I have never even tried.

It's something I genuinally believe I couldn't bring myself to do, even if hypothetically we remove the fact I'm in a relationship, I really couldn't bring myself to be sexually intimate with anyone unless I knew them really well, no offense to anyone here of course but even the concept of sleeping with someone I didn't have a long term commitment with beforehand makes my skin crawl.

I find the "to that extent" particularly interesting in this sentence. It implies (correct me if I am wrong) that you do have sexual thoughts/feelings/desires about men you are not in a committed partnership with; just not "to the extent" that so far motivated you to have sex with them.

I'm actually gay , so it's women I tend to be attracted too . But in principal this is correct. I might see someone and think shes attractive, but thats the only extent it would go to. In terms of people I see on the street or see occasionally etc, my attraction to others only goes as far as liking their appearence and then usually for only a fleeting moment. It may be hard to believe but I can genuinally say I've only wanted to be sexually intimate with one person out of all the people ive met in my entire life.

My question: What do you do with other desires that you have, but only to a small extent? Say you find some food you don´t know somewhat attractive or intriguing? Do you feel "I feel like eating it, but not to the extent that I would - and therefore I can´t."?

Hard to say, I can't place this scenario into the same way I view sex and sexuality as I don't feel the same way about food as I do about sex. I think my attitude about sex is non applicable to scenarios like this. Ill try new foods, happily.

What I am trying to get at again is my creed-question: Is it really that your feelings prevent you from trying it - or is it more the creed you have been brought up with? (I don´t know about your place, but here it is still a common idea passed on from generation to generation that women "can´t" do that.)
Don´t get me wrong: I find no fault with having creeds and convictions, I don´t even find fault with the convictions being the result of our education - I am just wondering what is at the core. It´s none of my business, but I am curious. I am often asking similar questions to myself concerning strongly held convictions or secure feelings.

Hard to say, I was raised a Methodist Christian and taught that anything outside the norm was unusual. I turned out quite a way outside the norm in the end however, and it's only a few years ago I returned to my faith albeit as a non-denominational Christian. I certainly don't view myself as a conventional Christian and as a rule am pretty Liberal and open minded on most issues, which is why im unsure if my conclusions about sex are related to a creed. I feel more likely this is what innately feels right to me rather than having it drummed into me to the point I just repeat what ive been taught. I have no issue with people being sexual beings for example I just feel it's better to express that to another individual.

Aren´t you interested in finding out?

Sure, im just not sure how I could ever tell for sure.

What I find intriguing about this statement is that it incorporates so many detailed conditions. To me, it doesn´t sound like the expression of a feeling, it sounds more like a creed. Just saying.

Again this is hard to explain, I find being sexually intimate is amazing, but I don't have a terribly high sex drive. For me it's all about the moments you spend together in the act and the time afterwards, if I was to have sex and know id never see that person again or be intimate with them again it would be heartbreaking.

"So special that it´s meant for relationships". This is one thing I don´t understand. It sounds like there is a scale of specialness of certain activities, and the higher they are on the scale of this specialness, the more they are meant for such relationships. Is there anything else (but sexual intimacy) that is not as high on the scale of specialness that it is only meant for such relationships, but pretty high, so that you´d almost say they are meant for such relationships, too? Like, say, talking honestly about one´s feelings, or going out for dinner, or whatever?

Hmm, it's good for everyone to be honest with feelings but yes I'd say it was especially important for people to be honest in relationships, and especially important to consider each others feelings etc too. Yes they are important in general, but probably more so when deep feelings are involved like in a relationship.

Well, ok. This does not really match the attitude I am thinking of, but if this is your experience with people I do understand why you arrive at this conclusion.

I can appreciate this isnt always the case

Now, I really didn´t see that coming. If memory serves I have never before heard the idea of having "respect for an act itself". I have an idea what respect for a person is, I have an idea how we can perform an action respectfully - but respect to "the act of...itself" as an abstract statement doesn´t ring any bell whatsoever with me.
Out of curiosity: Are there other acts that should be performed only with certain prerequisites and conditions that are manifestations of "respect for the act itself"? Can you give me an example, so that I understand this idea better?

Sure another example relating to relationships is for me to have "respect" for a relationship both parties involved should only enter into it if they are 100% commited for the long term. Even if things don't work out that should be the primary focus of both people beforehand.

Anyways, I guess what is behind all of my questions: The interest to find out whether this is primarily a "view" (as you put it here) that determines your "feelings", or rather a "feeling" (as you mostly put it) that you rationalize in your "view".

That went right over my head

Well, if an act has consequences you can´t do it irrespective of those consequences. That´s the nature of consequences, after all.
When saying "irrespective of the feelings of others" - whom do you have in mind? Let´s take the scenario that A has sex with B (with both of them not being interested in sexual exclusivity), next week B has sex with C (under the same conditions), and so forth. Who would be the one who acts irrespectively of someone else´s feelings, and who would be the one irrespectively of whose feelings is acted upon? Or are you thinking of persons who are not even participants?

Theres always the risk of someone getting hurt when something like sexual intimacy is being treated casually imho, however there are risks to anything. My main concern about casual sex is that its peoples emotions and feelings that have a high chance of being hurt, if someone feels a bond with someone else and wants more they can get hurt as theirs no commitment, theres a higher risk of std's/unwanted pregnancy whatsoever if you are having lots of sex with different partners (even if you are sensible and use protection) and a myriad of other ways people can get hurt. Now of course we cant go through life worrying about the risks of everything or we wouldnt do anything, but I feel emotional risks usually only occour by people doing things that arent quite in line with how things should be. I of course could be wrong about this, but again its just the conclusion I reach from what I see.

Again, no, you don´t come across as judgemental at all.
In return, I hope I don´t come across as overly investigative. No need to mention that you are of course free to ignore all of my questions.

It was no problem and I look forward to another reply.

 

[HaloHope]

For me, commitment to someone means making a concerted effort to ensure that all my dealings with them are loving, affectionate, thoughtful, and enjoyable. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone but them.

I find the idea that sexual exclusivity = commitment very strange.

I find the idea that commitment = anything other than giving yourself 100% to another person strange too, but I guess we just come from totally different viewpoints

It's admirable that you see commitment as something that means giving love, affection etc.. to those your commited too, but for me that criteria also involves giving nearly all my spare time to an individual, enjoying their company and doing the vast majority of everyday things and special things together. If there was more than two people involved id find giving the degree of commitment a relationship needs impossible.

 

[cantata]

This is such an interesting discussion! I feel like repping everyone who's contributing - I'm enjoying it so much.

HaloHope, it's perhaps important to note that several things you say in your post ring true with me. I would imagine that there are certain reasons that you have for linking sexual intimacy so closely with long-term commitment. I know that when I sleep with someone, there are certain feelings that I need to have about that person.

For a start, I have to like them, because sex for me is, just as you say, a loving act (although I suspect we think of 'loving' differently). I wouldn't want to engage in it with someone whose pleasure and happiness I didn't care about.

I also have to trust anyone I have sex with. At the risk of stereotyping, I particularly have to trust men with whom I engage in sexual intimacy, because I am inclined to be sexually shyer and more submissive with men, and I therefore need to know that they won't demand anything of me that I'm not willing to do, and that they will respect my request to stop if I feel uncomfortable. That's not to say that I need to trust women less; but for better or worse, I feel more sexually confident with women and I also feel less at risk of being pushed to do something I don't want to do, so certain factors are less of an issue with women in most cases. If I ever were to be in a situation where I might want to sleep with a woman with whom I felt inclined to be similarly submissive as I am with most men, I would probably need to feel the same things as I need to feel towards men I want to have sex with. Linked to my need to trust this person is a need to feel that they care about me and my feelings in some way.

I, like you, also need to feel that there is a strong chance that I will see and/or speak to the person I have sex with again. Sex makes me feel emotionally linked to someone, and I can't help but regard it as an investment. It makes me feel vulnerable (not necessarily in a bad way), and I would find a loss of contact with the people I have sex with, at least in the short term, very difficult. That's why I only have sex with people I know reasonably well and with whom I am friends.

But all of these things which are usually requirements for me before I will have sex with someone, though they are quite specific, do not change the fact that I am frequently in a position where there are several people with whom I would happily have sex, all else being equal! I am able to like, trust, and feel I can rely upon several people at once. Perhaps the fact that I have these requirements means I'm not really part of the hook-up culture that PassionFruit is talking about. I'm not sure. I am occasionally tempted by very casual sex, but generally speaking I think I prefer to stick to people I know I like and trust.

As a small aside, I also happen to be in a situation with my boyfriend where we occasionally are in a position to engage in sexual intimacy with someone as a couple. I tend to have the same feelings about women with whom we do that as I do about people in general with whom I would have sex.

 

[cantata]

I find the idea that commitment = anything other than giving yourself 100% to another person strange too, but I guess we just come from totally different viewpoints

It's admirable that you see commitment as something that means giving love, affection etc.. to those your commited too, but for me that criteria also involves giving nearly all my spare time to an individual, enjoying their company and doing the vast majority of everyday things and special things together. If there was more than two people involved id find giving the degree of commitment a relationship needs impossible.

That's fair enough! I agree with you that time can be an issue, and time is often what puts a limit on the number of partners that polyamorous people can handle. Personally I prefer a small amount of distance between my partners and I; I love doing everyday things with my boyfriend, but we both agree that we wouldn't want to live together! We value our alone-time as well, and we value our time with other friends. At the moment my arrangement with my boyfriend does not have space for me to have any additional partners apart from those whom my boyfriend and I are involved with together, so at present it's a moot point with regards to my relationship. But that being said, I believe it is perfectly possible to be in a committed relationship while being sexually intimate with more than one person. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't regard, I don't know, spending time with your family as a dent in your commitment to your partner. Similarly, I wouldn't regard spending time with one partner as detracting from my commitment to another.

 

[sidhe]

QFT!

I agree that there is a problem if young people feel under pressure to have casual sex when they would prefer something else. But what about people who do actually want to have casual sex and can find other people who want to have it in the same kind of context as they do? Seems to me that they're not in trouble at all!

I'll QFT this.

 

[Steezie]

Something I kinda wanted to add as a side note. Im going to try and keep this as clean as possible and still remain understandable

I am engaged to be married now, but prior to my fiancee, I have had four relationships. All were serious and three involved sex.

The experience I gained, sexually, from those relationships has carried over to my current relationship and as a result of prior sexual experience I now know enough to NOT be awkward sexually with my fiancee. She is not as experienced as I am and often its me dancing lead and it tends to be far less awkward and a lot more fun when one person knows the steps. Sex between two people that have NO idea whats happening can get scary (especially for women) and I've seen it ruin relationships.

Bad or unsatisfying sex can also cause a lot of friction. Lets face it, we're human, we have needs. When those needs go un-fulfilled, we get frustrated. That frustration builds up and then gets unleashed on the partner. How many fights have you seen between couples that involved bad or unsatisfying sex?

Im not saying sexual experience and knowlege can save a relationship or is vital for a stable relationship OR that two sexually in-experienced people cant have a relationship because of thier in-experience. But when one or both partners know how to dance and dance well, both partners tend to have a lot more fun which removes an element of stress from a relationship.

 

[Verv]

How is hookups/free love among young singles translate to being perpetually unfaithful to someone? I was your age 34 years ago, and young singles acted pretty much exactly the same as they do now, experimenting with various partners, exploring relationships, and usually settling into serial monogamy or a long term marriage/cohabitation.

I think that may be why now there is a higher divorce rate.

To put it simply... Sex can be confusing to people. People can begin seeing each other for the wrong reasons (the sex) and as they grow apart from each other they stay together for the convenience of their physical relationship. Perhaps many married couples were more excited about the idea of being married than beign with their partner, and having been fulfilling something like sex for such a time prior to marriage their judgment was clogged.

I can see arguments why the reverse could also be true.

Another thing to consider is if one has had promiscuous sex for a decade and then gets married, how are they going to feel after five years of being with only one person? Probably more tormented than someone who has not been feeding their sexual appetite for so long.

Yes, drunk people often do stupid things like having unsafe sex or driving cars or getting into fights with other drunk people. Very stupid, likely to have bad consequences - because of the drinking to excess, not because of sex.

You'll find most people as they age spend less time getting really drunk every weekend. The body rebels.

You are right -- it is because of the drinking that they have sex without condoms.

However, I do drink. I do get drunk. But since I do not have promiscuous sex and have simply drawn such a line and respected its boundaries I have no risk of disease.

I do not desire to have promiscuous sex so when my inhibitions are lowered I do not do it.

If a husband and a wife value their sexually exclusive relationship I fail to see how anything anyone else does could devalue it.

But if they did it previously it could create weaknesses within themselves.

So the actual problem would be the "drinking culture".
A lot of people drink heavily and the fact stands that some of these people will risk driving drunk and causing accidents. Not a particularly strong argument against cars.

It is a problem with the drinking culture, definitely, as it heightens the chance of unprotected sex.

However, I still believe promiscuous sex even when very safe can have emotional and mental damage to people. I think you have heard me explain why before and we can leave it at that.

Spell out what this is supposed to tell me. We have had a lot of means to protect ourselves from a lot of infectuous diseases, yet these diseases are still around. How come I never seen to see people rallying against the immorality of "hand-shake culture" with reference to flu and other infectuous diseases? How come I don´t see public toilets rallied against as immoral with reference to infectuous diseases?


So?

The flu does not kill and I would gladly get sick with the flu once every two or three years to be able to greet people in an intimate and friendly way.

But I will note: I do oppose coughing without covering your mouth.

Its more difficult than you can imagine; I find very special qualities in everyone I know and eveyrone I meet; would they want to share those qualities is their choice, its not mine.

Its always the woman's choice; she gets to decide if she wants to like me or not, she has the choice to say yes, and she has the choice to leave me as well. I get no choice I'd want to take.

In failed relationships its mostly the woman who leaves, but its the man who usually 'screws up'. ~shrug~ go fig.

Hey dude, you should just put forward some effort. If you do not put yourself on the market you will probably not be bought.

In most human society it is the man who makes the moves. There are probably women saying, "Why hasn't Mpok asked me out? I mean, I talk to him all the time and we laugh and have a good time and I try to send signals..."

There is nothing more stupid than enjoying a blossoming friendship with the undertones of romance only to be moving away to Texas in 2 weeks after a year of beign with them and then slowly admitting to each other that you would have liked more. Trust me, man.

"Well, I met him at a party. And I really like him. But there's this problem. I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, becuase if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused because it seems like I don't get the "friend" part, but he gets the "benefits."

Wow, very true. Powerful words.

People are left unfulfilled often times. And confused.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I guess what I am trying to spot is: When you speak of conclusions, what do you start from, what are the premises, what are the points you accept as relevant on the way from the starting point and the premises to the conclusion?

These are fair questions.

Let me ask you this rhetorical question: how did you form the concept "mature" -- as in "mature behavior"? (Just an example.)

My guess is that this wasn't the result of a strictly deductive process, but came from integrating different ideas, observations, experiences, etc. It may be difficult to explain the full process by which you formed such a concept.

Regarding sexuality, I'll offer some of my views.

The mind-body dichotomy is false. As living persons, we have both mind and body, and both form a single, unified whole. As such, sexuality is no less a mental phenomenon than a physical one.

Also, it is dangerous to treat reality as anything other than what it is. Reality is what it is, not what we might like it to be. To treat something as something other than what it fully is -- even unintentionally -- carries risks and the potential for mistakes.

And so, is dangerous to treat oneself or others as disembodied minds (or to treat the body as a less important "part"), or as unminded bodies (or the mind as a less important "part"), and that includes sexual treatment.

Falling on the "disembodied mind" end of the spectrum, the body will be seen as a prison that may be shameful or threatening to one's "soul". The body will be at best the source of one's "lower nature", and viewed with suspicion.

On the "unminded body" end, the mind may be seen as a threat to one's bodily interests. To deny one's bodily urges will be seen as denying one's fundamental nature. Sexual encounters will be little more than scratching an itch and will have no particular meaning, because the mind is the realm of meaning. Sex becomes mutual masturbation, and you might as well be having sex with a fembot.

My biggest issue with treating sex casually is that it seems to treat people as mere bodies, and not as complete persons. Also, it seems to treat oneself in that same way. (I should reiterate that I don't view all "one night stands" in this way. It is rather one's overall attitude towards sex; its role in one's life-plan. Sexual experiences can be stepping stones to something else.)

My views on sex arise from the requirements of integral living. In this view, an integrated view of mind and body, I think it is natural to gravitate towards a view of sex that respects both, and I think this leads to a "romantic" (or meaningful, or personable) view of sexuality. When one is attentive to the existence of one's partner as a complete person, then the kind of intimacy involved in sex is going to mean something, and that is likely to preclude taking it casually. It will likely involve hopes for something more, if it isn't fully valued for its own sake.

The reason why I made a concession to sidhe regarding "religious sex", is that it just might be a form of sexuality that preserves meaning, and therefore might be an end-in-itself (or "sacred").

Anyway, I'm out of time for writing this post.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sidhe]

"Well, I met him at a party. And I really like him. But there's this problem. I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, becuase if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused because it seems like I don't get the "friend" part, but he gets the "benefits."

That's not an issue of the "hook-up" culture, but of the culture that says that if you're sexually involved with someone, and socially involved with them, you're expected to have a relationship. The tragic result is that people can't handle the "friends with benefits" idea, and end up trying to have benefits without friendship. From what I can gather, the girl doesn't necessarily want a monogamous relationship, she wants the friends part to actually exist.

The issue there is the culture of monogamy, not "hook-ups." The guy has an idea that if you do X and Y, you're in a monogamous relationship, so you can only do X or Y. The girl seems to understand that doing X & Y <> monogamous relationship. It'd make an interesting read, over all, to get the full context.

Someone to drink beer with, play pool, hit punk shows, and have kinky kinky sex with...all without the strictures and crazy expectations of a "relationship"...that's a rare find. Relationships are bad news. Friends with benefits, you should probably do a good bit to hold on to. Including, y'know, marriage and stuff, and deciding not to fool around with other people.

And we need more religious sex and temple prostitutes, but that's just me.

 

[quatona]

You are right -- it is because of the drinking that they have sex without condoms.

However, I do drink. I do get drunk. But since I do not have promiscuous sex and have simply drawn such a line and respected its boundaries I have no risk of disease.

You are perfectly entitled of handling the issue of the incompatibility of drinking and other activities the way you do.
"Don´t drink and drive" means either "don´t drink when you want to drive" or "don´t drive when you are drunk". It is not an argument against driving.

I do not desire to have promiscuous sex so when my inhibitions are lowered I do not do it.

Good. So the entire drinking thing is merely a red herring, anyways.

But if they did it previously it could create weaknesses within themselves.

Could, would, might...
A lot of things could have a lot of effects. If you want to bring up a possible effect as an argument I would expect you to at least come up with some argument how the action is likely to have this effect.

However, the valuation of the risk/benefit lies in the eye of the individual. People do drive because they find the risks acceptable in view of the perceived benefits.

It is a problem with the drinking culture, definitely, as it heightens the chance of unprotected sex.

Then it would be better to discuss this in a thread about alcohol and its risks.

However, I still believe promiscuous sex even when very safe can have emotional and mental damage to people.

Oh, you are perfectly entitled to believe that all you want, and you are welcome to behave accordingly.
However, if you make such claims here on as message board I will investigate their validity, and if you bring up arguments for it I will look into their plausibility and logic.

I think you have heard me explain why before and we can leave it at that.

If I have heard them before, I guess I have addressed those there.
Here I am discussing the arguments you make here.

The flu does not kill

When I grew up and was a young adult, there were no STD´s that killed. Most of them were more or less harmless like a flu, others were easily curable.
So AIDS is a momentary problem of HIV, and certainly not an issue that makes a case for promiscuity being wrong. You could possibly make the argument that AIDS is currently a risk that needs to be considered, though, and I would agree.

and I would gladly get sick with the flu once every two or three years to be able to greet people in an intimate and friendly way.

And others find the risk of getting HIV that comes with having protected sex (and some even with having unprotected sex) acceptable.
People do all sorts of stuff with incomparibly higher risks, and there is noone who tries to make the risks a case for the immorality of the action itself.

If you don´t find the risk of a certain activity unacceptable just don´t do it. It´s as simple as that. All the "immoral, because risky" talk is a cop out - else we would hear you telling us that driving, mountain climbing, bungee jumping, parachuting and even only leaving the house is immoral.
The fact that a disease can be transmitted by it makes no moral or ethical case against an activity. Else we would put e.g. blood donations on the list of unethical behaviours, as well. They can transmit AIDS, too, after all.

But I will note: I do oppose coughing without covering your mouth.

Well, if people do that in mutual consent to each other who am I to oppose....

 

[quatona]

HaloHope and Mark, thanks for your posts! I will respond later, ok?

 

[HaloHope]

This is such an interesting discussion! I feel like repping everyone who's contributing - I'm enjoying it so much.

HaloHope, it's perhaps important to note that several things you say in your post ring true with me. I would imagine that there are certain reasons that you have for linking sexual intimacy so closely with long-term commitment. I know that when I sleep with someone, there are certain feelings that I need to have about that person.

For a start, I have to like them, because sex for me is, just as you say, a loving act (although I suspect we think of 'loving' differently). I wouldn't want to engage in it with someone whose pleasure and happiness I didn't care about.

I also have to trust anyone I have sex with. At the risk of stereotyping, I particularly have to trust men with whom I engage in sexual intimacy, because I am inclined to be sexually shyer and more submissive with men, and I therefore need to know that they won't demand anything of me that I'm not willing to do, and that they will respect my request to stop if I feel uncomfortable. That's not to say that I need to trust women less; but for better or worse, I feel more sexually confident with women and I also feel less at risk of being pushed to do something I don't want to do, so certain factors are less of an issue with women in most cases. If I ever were to be in a situation where I might want to sleep with a woman with whom I felt inclined to be similarly submissive as I am with most men, I would probably need to feel the same things as I need to feel towards men I want to have sex with. Linked to my need to trust this person is a need to feel that they care about me and my feelings in some way.

I, like you, also need to feel that there is a strong chance that I will see and/or speak to the person I have sex with again. Sex makes me feel emotionally linked to someone, and I can't help but regard it as an investment. It makes me feel vulnerable (not necessarily in a bad way), and I would find a loss of contact with the people I have sex with, at least in the short term, very difficult. That's why I only have sex with people I know reasonably well and with whom I am friends.

But all of these things which are usually requirements for me before I will have sex with someone, though they are quite specific, do not change the fact that I am frequently in a position where there are several people with whom I would happily have sex, all else being equal! I am able to like, trust, and feel I can rely upon several people at once. Perhaps the fact that I have these requirements means I'm not really part of the hook-up culture that PassionFruit is talking about. I'm not sure. I am occasionally tempted by very casual sex, but generally speaking I think I prefer to stick to people I know I like and trust.

As a small aside, I also happen to be in a situation with my boyfriend where we occasionally are in a position to engage in sexual intimacy with someone as a couple. I tend to have the same feelings about women with whom we do that as I do about people in general with whom I would have sex.

Interesting post cantana. It seems that we have similar criteria for what we want from the people we love, but different definitions of what makes for a commited relationship.

While as I say I dont really "get it" I can see where your coming from.

Incidentally my partner is of course my best freind, we have a lot of fun together and share the same interests. So freindship is a big criteria for me in a relationship.

 

[HaloHope]

That's fair enough! I agree with you that time can be an issue, and time is often what puts a limit on the number of partners that polyamorous people can handle. Personally I prefer a small amount of distance between my partners and I; I love doing everyday things with my boyfriend, but we both agree that we wouldn't want to live together! We value our alone-time as well, and we value our time with other friends. At the moment my arrangement with my boyfriend does not have space for me to have any additional partners apart from those whom my boyfriend and I are involved with together, so at present it's a moot point with regards to my relationship. But that being said, I believe it is perfectly possible to be in a committed relationship while being sexually intimate with more than one person. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't regard, I don't know, spending time with your family as a dent in your commitment to your partner. Similarly, I wouldn't regard spending time with one partner as detracting from my commitment to another.

Obviously one of the key areas we differ is wanting to spend time by ourselves etc.. I dont really like much distance in a relationship at all. I prefer to spend pretty much all my time (except when im at work and shes at work) with my partner and even when we do our own thing we usually are in the same room chatting as we do so. I'm someone who tends to be very focussed on another person rather than wanting a large circle of freinds I spend time with so I suppose my view of relationships suits how I am in terms of my nature too.

Incidentally, I probably would regard spending lots of time with family members as a dent in spending time with my partner sometimes as my family isnt a particularly close one