Out of curiosity can we define the “into” part of the op? I mean assuming that casual sex is sex with no meaningful connection and where there is not a possibility of one. Are you into it if you’ve tried it and didn’t like it? If you tried it and liked it but now you don’t like it any more are you still into it? If you didn’t mean to have casual sex but did are you into it?
Then what is sex? Sex is always just sex. Whether it’s in loving long term relationship or a one night stand, it’s still sex.
You can post whatever crude pictographs you like, it is still eccentric. The fact that you see casual sex as being on the same continuum as prostitution indicates that it comes from a depth of ignorance about sexual relationships so deep that you should probably hold off on subjecting some porr unsuspecting man to it.
And you know this how?
Agreed. I know of more long-term relationships and marriages that remind me of prostitution than one-night stands.
And there are plenty of charming, atheist guys who aren’t ‘into’ casual sex. They’re the ones my girlfriends complain about when they won’t give it up (damn society for teaching us that all guys want it all the time).
Are you saying that this generalization cannot be made ever? Or *shouldn’t *be made ever?
I think generalizations help when one is trying to reduce a large pool to a manageable number. I prefer that sort of estimation to random selection.1 If you have preferences related to sex, by all means use those preferences as a selection point.
- Random selection is necessary for airport security searches but that’s a different debate and (I hope) unrelated to dating.
Of course. For dating, you can use racial profiling. 
Well, aside from the question of dealing with poorly defined words, almost any question regarding human behavior can be reduced to two categories. It’s like saying there are liberals and conservatives, when really the spectrum is much wider. For example off the top of my head…
- People who enjoy sex and actively pursue it as often as possible.
- People who enjoy sex but don’t let it become their main drive
- People who enjoy sex but actively reject it except in a committed relationship
- People who don’t enjoy sex but have it a lot nevertheless (it happens)
- …don’t enjoy it and don’t have it
this is by no means even close to complete, it ignores all kinds of shades of grey. I, for example, am willing to “fuck on the first date” if I feel like both of us would enjoy it, and both of us would be comfortable with it, but I’m certainly not a horndog out scanning the horizon for the next whiff of aroused female. I can, perhaps, understand somebody not looking for the latter type of male, but given my proclivities, I assume that I fall under the OPs blanket dislike of those who have sex outside of committed relationships, which is concerning for a number of reasons I’ve already laid out.
Acknowledged
Take your sexual activity examples. I’m (hypothetically) looking for someone to date. I have access to this 1-5 type of preference information for everyone in my dating pool. I decide to only date 1s and 4s. By making this choice I have divided this lovely many-shaded pool into two groups: My Chosen and Everyone Else. There are some fine, fine specimens in the Everyone Else category. But it seems likelier to me that I will find a good match in My Chosen category. All in all, focusing on the smaller My Chosen pool is a better use of my resources.
OP is making a similar value judgment. She’s not wasting her time pursuing males with whom she does not agree on sexual matters. She’s also not wasting the time of the males who otherwise would have had to discover this for themselves over a longer period of time. “My values are best” aside, I think her selection approach is efficient and I don’t understand the heartburn over it.
Because we argue over everything here.
That aside, she’s not getting any.
The problem with your approach is that it assumes one can simply ask what another person’s intentions and preferences are and that they will be forthright in their response. It is not only wrong, it can be counterproductive. It’s kind of like if I went into a bar and started asking people who wants to fuck? Or a woman asking on the first date if a guy would consider marriage. You aren’t at that stage yet. You need to go through the various courtship rituals first.
Simply saying you won’t date a guy who’s into casual sex will eliminate a huge number of potential mates. For example, guys who are only into casual sex because they haven’t found the right person yet but would really like to.
I agree it is a very efficient approach the way you define it, but in practice it would not work nearly as well. People do not wear signs, so no matter what, aside from a few horn dogs, she will have to date guys in a variety of categories only to move on once she determines what category they are in. Unless her first line upon meeting a guy is to ask whether or not they are into casual sex. Even then the efficiency would be lowered by guys willing to lie for sex or people offended by the question.
So in the end her eliminating choices based on a knowledge that is hard to obtain seems to be a worse use of resources then trying to find a nice guy. Either way it takes long conversations but just looking for a nice guy you only have to do half as much probing.
Causing others to spend resources on her because they don’t know they don’t meet her requirements, again unless she opens with the question, is inefficient for the entire system. So my heartburn is coming from the fact that I am seeing myself eliminated before I have a chance to prove I’m a nice guy and may not know I don’t have a chance until it comes up in conversation. Which would be what 3rd date before it is appropriate to talk about sexual habits?
My problem is that sexual openness is almost entirely exclusive from the rest of one’s personality. I know lots of horny guys who, given a girl they want to settle down with, would make fantastic boyfriends, and I know a lot of complete morons and boors who don’t have “casual sex” but would be atrocious boyfriends. If sexual history, in and of itself, is a disqualifier, I find it to be a poor choice at best.
Ergo, my immediate reaction is that there’s an underlying implication that she’s looking for “other” traits that are implied by the unwillingness to engage in “casual sex” that just aren’t linked in real life. Monogamy, general trustworthiness, etc… that can really be found in any of those categories.
This thread is no longer helpful so I’m leaving it. Everyone please feel free to type amongst yourselves. Have fun.
Thank you to all the posters who tried to be helpful.
Did you really want help or did you just come to tell us how much better you are then others who don’t have the same “high standards”?
I knew a guy who wasn’t into casual sex. Of course, he used to beat the living shit out of his wife. I’m not saying that all guys who aren’t into casual sex are going to beat up their wives and I have no idea the ratio of wife beater among CS vs. NCS, but OTOH, it’s also not an indication if the person is going to be a good husband or not.
I know a lot of men and women who didn’t always keep their underware on, but then when they met the right person became devoted husbands and wives. Society, in general, no longer places as much emphasis on the white flag of virginity as it did 50 years ago, and you will not likely find as many inexperienced people out there. Personally, I don’t believe it’s because people are “worse” or have “lower” standards than a half century previously, it’s just that society allows people to do what they wanted to then, but were afraid of society’s judgement.
Interesting comparision with prostitition. Others have expressed the inappropriateness, but I will add that if you were to visit a site with a high rate of participation from those of that profession, I’m sure you wouldn’t score many points by singing your song of “higher” values.
I encourge you to keep your blinders on. Then the good guys who went through a phase in their lives when they were into CS will be able to find people who appreciate them for their personalities and characters.
And if he accepts and you balk, then you’re a bad bad person. Liar liar pants on fire.
I just wanted to jump in again and say that, although this may be true most of the time, it isn’t true in my case. My SO isn’t religious, at all. And he isn’t socially awkward, at least in a traditional sense. He’s extremely funny, and is widely considered to be the life of the party. And he goes to lots of parties.
He just happens to only enjoy sex with people he cares for. I’ve asked him, and he says he just can’t get turned on by a woman unless he likes her, and respects her. Well, ok, he said, “I’m not gonna fuck some girl unless she’s really cool. I don’t want to be with someone who sucks!” If it’s a choice between sex with someone who has a marginal personality (even if she’s hot) or doing something else, he just thinks he’d rather do something else.
I guess that makes him a little weird, but I like it.
I guess I thought of her as meaning selective, rather than “high standards”. Maybe it’s more of a vocabulary problem?
In any case, I think she wants someone who has a similar attitude as hers towards sex. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a good thing. If she knows she won’t feel comfortable with a man who thinks, hey sex is no big deal, it doesn’t mean anything, because it does mean something to her. It is a big deal to her. And that’s okay. At least she knows that about herself, and is looking for someone with similar values.
People need to quit being so personally insulted by this. It isn’t about you. She sounds like a younger woman trying to find a nice man, and not really sure how to keep from getting burned by a user. There’s nothing wrong with that. Lay off, guys.
Actually, I know from plenty of anecdotal experience that even this is NOT a good way to go about getting burned, but in fact a way to get much more severe burns.
and if she wanted to use “selective” instead of “high standards” I’m betting that her keyboard had all of those letters. She came into a forum where not everyone shares her values and is condescending to those who disagree. That I have a problem with. Had she come in and said that it was important that she find a man who shared her same values towards sex without the judgmental shit, then people would likely have been more helpful.
Hell, I used to be a player, and I could write books on what to do or not to do. But when one starts throwing out the “higher” standards, and telling women of this board that she feels sorry for them because they don’t believe the same as her, then I’m not going to go out of my way to help.
Nay, have her be respectful of others’ standards first. This isn’t a junior high school Sunday School class. This is a forum of a wide range of adults with a wide range of beliefs. There are people here who have lifestyles which wouldn’t work for me, but I wouldn’t dream of insulting them. (Outside of the Pit, of course. But only if they insulted me first.)
If someone came in and started thread on how to avoid meeting religious women because it was “beneath” them to date someone “stupid” enough to fall for a God, I’d be equally unhappy.