The question is not nearly as absurd as you all are making it out to be. Before the advent of reliable birth control, NSA sex for a woman carried a significant risk of having to raise a child without a father to support it. In most circumstances, this effectively meant the life of the mother was ruined.
In modern society, a female’s cultural and intellectual understanding that sex can now be risk free clashes with their deep seated biological aversion towards sex before commitment and this plays out differently in different people. To try and pretend otherwise is not facing facts.
I feel no such aversion, deep-seated and biological or otherwise. To try and apply your hang-ups to me, let alone 52ish% of humanity, is sad and delusional.
If one of those persons engaging in NSA sex had a committed partner who would be hurt if they knew of said sex, it is no longer NSA sex. With a committed partner, there is a huge string attached. If the partner was okay with it, it would remain NSA sex and then, who cares?
Because… the person is now in a SA relationship. One of those strings is “Let’s only have sex with each other”.
It’s possible to have a SA relationship without the monogamy string. Some couples like to reserve bedroom antics as something they only do with each other. Why? There’s a strong cultural bias to (at least an outward display of) monogamy. Also, just because you have meaningless, sentiment-free NSA sex with strangers in your single days doesn’t mean that you don’t attach emotional significance to sex within a committed relationship.
No, but the original part is true. Reliable birth control has changed NSA sex for women into what its always been for men to some extent. And while some women immediately saw this as freeing in the 1960s with the pill (and some women had NSA sex long before that), its taken a generation or two for cultural attitudes to change.
It still isn’t there, and probably won’t be. There are those of us who find being alone with relative strangers to carry too much risk of violence to allow ourselves to be exposed in such a fashion - at least on a regular basis. There will always be those of both genders who have moral qualms about casual sex - sometimes for everyone - sometimes just those qualms around themselves and people they would choose intimacy with. Then there is something we’ve talked about here - for guys bad sex is generally still good - for women, bad sex is sortof painful, unfullfilling - a woman can get more enjoyment by herself than she can with a partner who doesn’t bother to try and meet her needs.
But to the OP, sex is fun. And there are a lot of things you stop doing casually in a committed relationship other than sex. People stop spending money casually. They consider their partner before going out to a movie. You make arrangements for your holidays around them. Emotional intimacy with other people, particularly people of the opposite sex might be limited.
Dangerosa, there’s nothing wrong with NOT having (or wanting) casual sex, for any reason. But any of them apply to either gender (except your last) and none of them, IMO, explain the “cultural norm” of expecting women to attach more emotional significance to sex than men do.
As for your last reason, maybe I’m just spectacularly lucky, but I’ve never met a man who “doesn’t bother”. I may have met some who weren’t magicians or mind-readers, but that’s why god gave me words and the ability to move. Sex is what you make it. If I’m not enjoying it, that’s only *half *his fault, at most.
Let’s say we have a situation in which a young woman, Sandra, engages in sex with multiple partners, all while being a single woman.
Sandra soon finds herself in a relationship with Tom, who also spent his single days engaging in sex with multiple partners.
Given that Sandra and Tom believe that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with strangers while single, why does that now change that they are together? Sex is “harmless fun” when you’re having it with a stranger, why should anyone be affected?
Of course, if they both believed right from the get-go that sex is best left for couples in monogamous relationships, then they’d have no inconsistency to explain.
But now why is there a shift? They both purport to believing in “no strings attached” sex as single people, do they now not trust each other to keep sex with others as strictly NSA?
To put another way, why is sex only regarded as sacred when you are in a relationship, but not when you are single?
But there IS no inconsistency. I do **not **believe that “sex is best left for couples in monogamous relationships”. But when I’m in a relationship, I prefer it to be monogamous.
It’s not the sex that’s sacred, it’s the relationship.
Because most people, when they are in a relationship, agree not to have sex with other people. They also agree to a lot of other things. Making a dinner for just yourself is fine when you’re single - why isn’t it ok to only prepare a meal for yourself while you’re in a relationship? Going out of town for a weekend getaway without telling anyone is fine when you’re single - why isn’t it when you’re in a relationship? Getting yourself into $20k of debt on wild spending sprees is ok - if stupid - when you’re single. Why isn’t it ok when you’re in a relationship?
COURTESY. POLITENESS. RESPECT. If you agree to ANYTHING in a relationship, then it’s not ok to unilaterally go against it. If you’re in a relationship in which emotional togetherness is the primary mover and sexuality is secondary, you might have an agreement with your partner that you can have NSA sex with others. If you have an agreement with your partner that sometimes you’re not going to show up for dinner with no explanation, then it’s ok to do so.
I think restricting, “But why does THIS change when you’re in a relationship?” to ONLY sexual matters is very short-sighted.
But a spouse is directly affected by those examples. If you only cook for yourself I might go hungry, and the act of failing to do something for your spouse when it is very easy to do creates extra work for them, hence is considered rude.
If someone disappears for a weekend without telling their spouse, they will worry about their welfare.
Going in to debt affects your partner because you might be liable for each other’s debts, or financially dependent on one person.
Having sex with someone else has no direct impact on a spouse (sorry, should not have a direct impact on a spouse) who suscbribes to the “NSA sex” philosophy. It’s just “harmless fun”, right? So why does the spouse get upset?
If you’ve got a satisfactory sex life with your partner, why would you go to the trouble of going out to find a stranger with whom to have sex when you can have it at home? And wouldn’t you rather be spending that time together with your partner, not trawling bars looking for a pick-up?
And (as others have said before me) there are a lot of couples who have relationships where they’ve agreed that it is ok to keep having sex with other people. Why are you assuming that all couples are monogamous?
And if I find another source of sex for myself, you might go horny. Your point?
Well, if you have NSA-sex while in a relationship you may catch an STD or end up with a pregnancy scare (since *no *contraceptives are 100% safe). That sure would have direct impact on the spouse, right?
If I end up with either of that while single, it only affects me and the sexual partner at the time.
You’ve been more lucky than I’ve been, because good sex is a lot of fun, and bad sex you are better off by yourself. And good masterbation is a lot of fun, and bad masterbation is still as good as median sex. So why take the risk with strangers? And a really bad date ends up in rape and I’ve been there done that, and therefore, why would I risk that again?
But I judge neither the man or the woman who decides to engage in casual sex. Not a choice I’ve made very often - and being 42 in a committed relationship, not a choice I’m likely to make again. But I DO understand the sexual double standard and why its a cultural norm. Our society is set up to be most stable when fathers take ownership of their children - and casual sex without birth control doesn’t allow the assurance of being able to punish a man who doesn’t - therefore we end up with some strange convolutions to make sure that society remains stable - punishing the woman because we KNOW she is ‘guilty’ - and I think the child support trap for guys is another example - I don’t think its fair that a guy can end up paying 18 years of child support for a one night stand and a woman has options - but its one of the ways society tries to create stability.
