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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
Have you ever tried that? It’s actually really cool! 
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.
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.
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.
Merriam-Webster would like to disagree with you here.
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.
The correct ending to that last sentence was “for me”.
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.
I nominate this for the best username/comment pair for 2009 thusfar!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.