One night poll

[ewx]

Apropos of this article.

[Poll #701581]

Notes:

• If you're in a monogamous relationship then answer as if you were not - i.e. I'm asking about your opinion about the activity in general not about your current situation.
• "Morally wrong for everybody" means you think nobody should do it. "Morally wrong for you but OK for other people" means you'd think you were being bad if you did it but wouldn't necessarily think the same of someone else doing it. "OK for everybody" means you wouldn't think anyone, including yourself, was being bad for it (even if they themselves would).
• You can think it's distateful, or indication of something missing, without necessarily also thinking it's wrong.

Comments

[ewx.livejournal.com]

That seems like a nice and succinct expression for the distinction I was groping towards in the discussion above l-)

[juggzy.livejournal.com]

Then I don't think it exists. Not between friends, anyway, although of course many women fantasize about the zipless fuck; shagging a complete stranger in, I dunno, a dark alleyway and never seeing them again. Or is that just me?

Anyway, my point, or whatever is left of it, is that I think it's very hard to have sex without some emotional involvement resulting, although that doesn't preclude the example that you gave of both participants just deciding to stop.

[j4.livejournal.com]

It's Not Just You.

[juggzy.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha! How did I guess that Many Other Women would mean you?

[gerald_duck]

I am told a lot of women — though obviously by no means all — have that fantasy.

Oddly, amongst people I know, if men have that fantasy it's always with another man, not with a woman. Even for bisexuals. I'm vaguely grasping at some active/passive BDSM rationale behind that, but not quite seeing it. I think people usually envisage themselves being passive in such fantasies, but men can be passive in heterosexual sex, no?

[filecoreinuse.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to start hanging around in dark alleys :)....

Then I don't think it exists. Not between friends, anyway

[ewx.livejournal.com]

It's possible I've unwittingly left a (small!) trail of broken hearts in my wake, but I think most of the people in question would have said something - they don't on the whole seem like the types to pine away staring at a silent telephone. So my experience leads me to think it does exist (indeed between friends lest you get the unlikely image of me hanging around seedy bars looking for a pretty face...)

(Not denying that emotional involvement can quickly result; just I don't think it's all that certain.)

Re: Then I don't think it exists. Not between friends, anyway

[juggzy.livejournal.com]

I think you are confusing sex with no commitment with casual, emotionally uninvolved sex. Or perhaps a better way of putting that is "sex of which nothing further is expected."

If they were your friends, of course there is an emotional involvement.

of course there is an emotional involvement

[ewx.livejournal.com]

There's an emotional involvement with the person, sure, but it's of a different kind and I think they way it informs the activity is different too.