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

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

In general, I would say it's morally acceptable for two people who both know as a result of experience they are capable of having sex without forming any emotional bond and have clearly established that the other falls into this category too.

I would tend to qualify this according to history and experience, though; it's one thing for a thirty-year-old with a history of sexual relations already, quite another for a sexually inexperienced by hormonally-charged twenty-year-old.

[j4.livejournal.com]

[...] they are capable of having sex without forming any emotional bond and have clearly established that the other falls into this category too

What if they have agreed (and have clearly established that this is the case) to deal (jointly or severally) with the emotional bonds that may or may not form? Do you believe that it is morally wrong to form emotional attachments as a result of casual sex?

history and experience

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here, but it seems to me that the thing that is 'wrong' in the example you cite is simply that someone with more experience is taking advantage of someone with less experience -- and I don't think sex is necessary (though it may be sufficient) for that to happen.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here, but it seems to me that the thing that is 'wrong' in the example you cite is simply that someone with more experience is taking advantage of someone with less experience -- and I don't think sex is necessary (though it may be sufficient) for that to happen.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of two people of the same age, my point being that I'm not entirely happy with people forming initial impressions of what sexual relationships are like through casual sex.

I speak here only through my own biases and inexperience, though...

[j4.livejournal.com]

two people of the same age

I wasn't assuming anything about age, only experience. And I'm not even sure that a mismatch in experience is a prerequisite for one person to take advantage of another: I'm not sure it's possible to approach a sexual relationship with no assumptions, no expectations, a completely blank slate -- and as soon as there are assumptions or expectations, they can be misaligned.

I'm not entirely happy with people forming initial impressions of what sexual relationships are like through casual sex

Fair enough.

I suspect, though, that most people have already formed plenty of impressions of what sexual relationships are like before they get anywhere near actually having sex, casual or otherwise.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I suspect, though, that most people have already formed plenty of impressions of what sexual relationships are like before they get anywhere near actually having sex, casual or otherwise.

True, but I don't think preconceptions substitute for impressions formed by actual experience in this (and many other) fields.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Not a substitute, no, but preconceptions can influence actual experience.

[liv]

Agree with j4 that taking advantage of someone's inexperience (whether in the sexual arena or otherwise) is generally wrong. But how does someone acquire experience to know whether they can cope emotionally with casual sex or not, without having casual sex in the first place? To say that it's only acceptable for sexually experienced people to have sex makes me wonder how people are supposed to acquire the experience in the first place!

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Well done, you've passed the aptitude test. :o)

[liv]

So, uh, are you trying to justify that you think casual sex is wrong without coming across as all prudish and moralistic?

There has to be a first time, whether it's the first time you have sex or the first time you have casual sex. And also, to an extent expecting sex to be emotionally bonding is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a person has only ever had sex in important, loving relationships, they're going to have a whole lot of associations which would bias the way that they approach casual sex. So I don't think it's sensible to argue that people should start out by having sex only in committed relationships, but then may decide that they want to move on to more casual sex once they have more experience. Because the experience they acquire that way would not be relevant, basically.

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with the argument that casual sex is, in fact, morally wrong.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

So, uh, are you trying to justify that you think casual sex is wrong without coming across as all prudish and moralistic?

Not quite, because I do recognise the fact that there are lots of people who are in a position to know whether they fit my criteria.

[gerald_duck]

There's maybe an argument they should start out cautious and only have sex with people they love.

But I'm not sure how one would go about convincing a hormonal teenager of that, if sex was on offer from someone physically attractive that they didn't love, and they wanted to have a go.

Maybe they'd try it and realise casual sex wasn't right for them? My view is that, provided the choice was genuinely theirs, little harm is done, and their partner wasn't taking advantage of their inexperience.

Their main problem would likely be handling the opporobium of people more puritanical than I am.