# Girls who have sex with relative strangers **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 12, 2009, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894 "2009-01-12T09:44:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/141 "2009-01-13T17:41:12Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Somehow I doubt that. I personally would never attempt to \*\*guarantee \*\*that an experience I’ve had is qualitatively and quantitatively better than one I’ve never had, assuming of course that we’re not comparing, say… swimming and cancer. :rolleyes: Oh, I’ve had dalliances. Just never a one night stand. I can’t just fuck a stranger- call me strange but I like meaning and love with my sex. Sex without that is just jackin’ each other off. I can do that myself and not risk getting a girl pregnant or catching a disease. ---
**Author:** ![Karyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/fbc32d/32.png) [@Karyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karyn)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/142 "2009-01-13T17:42:32Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > Sex without a consience is just fooling yourself and horribly selfish. Why is it selfish if it’s between consenting adults and what is it that you think that so many people are fooling themselves about? More generally, why do you think that your personal standards are something that do or should apply to everyone? NSA sex doesn’t equate to 'without a conscience". ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/143 "2009-01-13T17:45:27Z")
What anyone does doesn’t bother me, so long as precautions are taken and laws are followed. But IMO, sex is never _that_ good the first time. It takes a little while to find your rhythym with a person and know their likes and dislikes and build a little trust. So it would seem like one-night-stands are cheating themselves. But that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/144 "2009-01-13T18:01:44Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > As a guy who has never had a one night stand, I think that emotionless, NSA, getting one off, \*\*\*one night only sex \*\*\*doesn’t cheapen the male or female… it cheapens the act of sex. > > Every sexual experience that I have had, I can guarantee was something qualitatively and quantitatively better for myself and my partner than the dispassionate sex with multiple one off partners. Sometimes I feel bad for sluts because they have a disconnect with the sacred and emotional aspect of sex. I think I may see the disconnect here. Not everyone believes in a god. I have had both NSA sex and sex within a commited relationship and I think they both tended to span the range of passion. Just because I had feelings that went beyond “Mmmm… sexy…” didn’t make it some magic act and there were certainly no Invisible Pink Unicorns. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/145 "2009-01-13T19:20:41Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > call me strange but I like meaning and love with my sex. Sex without that is just jackin’ each other off. I can do that myself and not risk getting a girl pregnant or catching a disease. See, I think that’s a perfectly valid lifestyle choice, I respect it, and I’m not inclined to call you anything. Wouldn’t the world be a lovelier place if you were similarly inclined? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/146 "2009-01-13T19:27:16Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > Sex without that is just jackin’ each other off. Have you ever tried that? It’s actually really cool! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/147 "2009-01-13T19:28:09Z")
> [@True Blue Jack](#): > > You mean beyond the fact that no form of birth control works all of the time, and the guy in question will probably never know, but the gal in question will be facing a pretty big decision if she is fertile and if the birth control, if any, didn’t work? > > Probably very little, except that the odds of AIDS transmission are greater for her. (I’m going mostly by a very professionally delivered seminar, but they gave an excruciatingly logical explanation for it.) > > My WAG is that “crabs” (genital lice) is a “balanced” risk for each. Yeah, but that didn’t seem to be what the OP was getting at. He seemed to be concerned only with morality and This Sort of Thing. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/148 "2009-01-13T19:38:56Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > See, I think that’s a perfectly valid lifestyle choice, I respect it, and I’m not inclined to call you anything. > > Wouldn’t the world be a lovelier place if you were similarly inclined? Where did I call anybody anything? I said I feel sorry for sluts sometime. And where I’m from that’s either meant jokingly, or as a term of endearment, nothing more than a descriptor. If you took offense, it wasn’t intended. What better english word for expressive brevity would have been better utilized here… promiscuous, unemotional, one night standers? And if you thought it referred primarily to women, you were way off. Most of the sluts I know are guys. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/149 "2009-01-13T19:55:14Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > Where did I call anybody anything? I said I feel sorry for sluts sometime. And where I’m from that’s either meant jokingly, or as a term of endearment, nothing more than a descriptor. If you took offense, it wasn’t intended. > > What better english word for expressive brevity would have been better utilized here… promiscuous, unemotional, one night standers? I think most people would think that when you are calling someone you don’t know a slut it generally bears a negative connotation. I have heard _friends_ use slut between each other jokingly but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used as a term of endearment. Especially when, as mentioned, referring to people you don’t know. Promiscuous is a pretty good descriptor. > [@devilsknew](#): > > And if you thought it referred primarily to women, you were way off. Most of the sluts I know are guys. Merriam-Webster would like to disagree with you here. > **[Definition of SLUT](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut)** > > a promiscuous person : someone who has many sexual partners —usually used of a woman; an unclean or slovenly woman : slattern; an impudent girl : minx… See the full definition [QUOTE=Merriam-Webster] 1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman 2 a: a promiscuous woman ; especially : prostitute b: a saucy girl : minx [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/150 "2009-01-13T19:56:58Z")
Actually, I was more offended by the idea that anyone who thinks differently than you is fooling themselves. I tend to be put off by people who claim to know the One True Way, no matter what way it happens to be. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/151 "2009-01-13T20:20:32Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Actually, I was more offended by the idea that anyone who thinks differently than you is fooling themselves. I tend to be put off by people who claim to know the One True Way, no matter what way it happens to be. I don’t claim to know any one true way. It might be right for you, it might not. But I do know that people are emotional creatures, and sex without consequence of emotion doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/152 "2009-01-13T20:22:06Z")
The correct ending to that last sentence was “for me”. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/153 "2009-01-13T20:27:02Z")
**DianaG** , I’m on your side in this debate - I see no compelling biological reason for women to attach more emotion to sex than men. I wholeheartedly approve of safe, respectful NSA sex. But I thought I would give you a response to the giving vs. getting question. The sad truth is that for many young women (and some older ones, I’m sure), the ideal transaction isn’t orgasm for orgasm - it’s orgasm for increased sense of self-worth. I think it’s a lot easier to understand the ‘giving it up’ thing with that dynamic in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/154 "2009-01-13T20:38:48Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Have you ever tried that? It’s actually really cool! 😃 I nominate this for the best username/comment pair for 2009 thusfar! ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/155 "2009-01-13T20:48:08Z")
> [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](#): > > **DianaG** , I’m on your side in this debate - I see no compelling biological reason for women to attach more emotion to sex than men. I wholeheartedly approve of safe, respectful NSA sex. > > But I thought I would give you a response to the giving vs. getting question. The sad truth is that for many young women (and some older ones, I’m sure), the ideal transaction isn’t orgasm for orgasm - it’s orgasm for increased sense of self-worth. I think it’s a lot easier to understand the ‘giving it up’ thing with that dynamic in mind. Hey, people have sex for all kinds of misguided reasons, I’m sure. But “increased sense of self worth” isn’t a reason exclusive to women (on the contrary, I’m pretty sure!). Like I mentioned before, I would never argue that all sex is good and healthy. But I find the implication that a woman is inherently at an emotional disadvantage in any sexual situation condescending at best, and infantilizing at worst. ---
**Author:** ![Truus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Truus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/156 "2009-01-13T20:57:05Z")
Why can people ( completely disregarding the gender discusion here) have no problem with NSA sex when single but start having problems with that when in a committed relationship? There’s a practical reasons, having nothing to do with changing ethics or morals. Earning a living, maintaining friendships and family ties, having hobbies etc. all take time and energy. Time and energy are not limitless commodaties. When single, ones personal time and energy may allow for nights out and NSA sex. When in a committed relationship, this changes because that time and energy goes into the relationship. A lot of people just do not have the time and energy to also continue to have NSA sex on the side, without the commited relationship suffering. For those of limited time and energy the risk for bad results is just too high: the personal time and energy budget for fun times soon are spend with a non-significant no strings attached partner, the times of daily living and chores and humdrum are left over to spend with the commited partner. So many people agree to (setting themselves) boundaries. Why bring the thought of changing morals and ethics into this at all? it’s not hypocracy, it’s practical for people like me, who are on a tight time and energy budget as it is. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/157 "2009-01-13T21:12:58Z")
Here’s something the OP should ponder: does the existence of “emotional infidelity” imply that it’s degrading for a single person to have deep, meaningful conversations with strangers in bars? ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/158 "2009-01-13T21:16:22Z")
You guys are missing the point here. The whole reason to be in a relationship is so you don’t have to use condoms. If you’re still having NSA sex, you’d have to use condoms, and then, what’s the point to being in a relationship? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/159 "2009-01-13T21:31:10Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > It would be interesting to explore whether bottoms in gay relationships tended to view themselves as “giving more” than tops. No. In fact, it’s the bottom who has the most control, since he’s the one who sets limits. (I’m not using the term “bottom” in the narrow context of anal sex, but in a much broader sense, including BDSM. In that sense, I am a top, and my partner is a bottom.) I have met many bottoms, in fact thousands, and damn few would consider themselves as “giving.” The men who think in terms of “giving” aren’t bottoms at all; they’re slaves (not that there’s anything wrong with that). If you are thinking that bottoms are more “giving,” then I think you are looking at sex from the point of view of a penis, and everything that interacts with that penis is being accommodating or receptive to it. Believe it or not, there are other points of view. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894/160 "2009-01-13T21:31:26Z")
> [@devilsknew](#): > > I don’t claim to know any one true way. It might be right for you, it might not. But I do know that people are emotional creatures, and sex without consequence of emotion doesn’t exist. > [@DianaG](#): > > The correct ending to that last sentence was “for me”. No. For everybody. By its very definition sexual arousal and the sexual act is a limbic and hence emotional response. It’s a fact, sex is inseperable and entirely dependent on the limbic centers of emotion. Science agrees with my view. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/girls-who-have-sex-with-relative-strangers/480894.md?page=9)