Just wanted to get some opinions on the matter of whether or not sex involves (or requires perhaps) a commitment.
Physically, just the time it takes to do it. Morally, most people would probably say yes. The misuse of sex seems to be a major cause of strife and hurt feelings, no matter how “uncommitted” someone says they are. As far as religious morals, this thread should soon fill up with posts of that.
My view? It should. Sex is more than just a physical act. It’s a wonderful way to express deep feelings to that other human. And sometimes, it can be exceptionally fun, esp with someone you like and trust.
Depends. Do you mean must sex involve committment for me, or do I think it must for everybody?
In general, as a moral standard, do you think yes or no. I would think that your personal answer would probably have an effect on the answer for ‘as a whole’. Because if you think that what you are doing is right (and we all usually do) then you would probably tend to think of that as the right way in general. Not always of course, what is right in one person’s mind can be very wrong in another’s…so I suppose I will leave it up to the responding party to either answer both personally and as a whole. Or to combine them for one answer if they (you) wish.
Hope that could clear it up…
Morally, no. It’s perfectly moral for two (or more) consenting adults to decide to have sex together without commitment.
Is it a good idea otherwise? Yes, if you’re clearheaded about it. Some of the best sex I’ve had (emotionally and physically) has been casual sex with friends who were as clearheaded as I was: we had sex several times, and at one point decided not to anymore. While we were having sex with each other, our communication about sex was more open than normal, since we weren’t risking a romantic relationship by suggestions or constructive criticism; there was also a lot less pressure to the whole act. Overall, a very good experience.
As long as you recognize that casual sex is casual sex, and not a hit of affection, or a plea for attention, a proxy for love, or an affirmation of attractiveness, then go ahead. Enjoy yourself.
Commitment, no. However it would be in the best intrest of both parties involved to have trust in the other.
Becuase the last thing you want is some one using that what you shared with the other, against you, if said person is imature enough to do so. Sadly I’ve seen this happen alot; its never pretty.
I once dated a woman; we went out for a few dates and realized we didn’t have that much in common except for a mutual lust for each other. So we talked about it and made sure that we were both absolutely clear that our attraction for each-other was based solely on our lust for each-other. (well at least 80% anyway we did have some pretty good conversations) Then we deided to act on our lust. Well this went on for about 3-4 months; then she did it… she said those words that fucked it all up… “I love you…” Out of my moral obligation I had to stop seeing her immediately after that becuase I didn’t feel the same way about her.
Although I don’t feel like I did any thing wrong, I still felt pretty bad about it. So needless to say its a risky adveture one takes when they choose to take that path.
Sex has never required a commitment. The PEOPLE involved in the sex act, however, are responsible for determining if THEY require a commitment.
Sadly, many young people who don’t know any better and many older adults who should know better don’t discuss this issue and they assume both people (or as many people as are involved in the sex act) are on the same wavelength. Big mistake. Still others who DO take the time to discuss the “commitment and sex” issue game-play with their partner, by saying it’s only lust when it isn’t or by calling it commitment when it isn’t. There should be a death penalty for anyone over 21 who does this. Those under 21 who do it should go to a special sex-education prison until they are 21. (j/k, but I am passionate about this issue.)
IMHO, great sex with commitment is the best of both worlds. Even better is sex with commitment AND deep friendship and regard. There is a level of affection, passion and cherishing that can be found ONLY with that combination. But to be fair, I have had some awesome sex with people I have considered nothing more than acquaintences with special privileges. As long as the communication, the clear understanding and the agreement are all there, from both (all) partners, let the romp begin!
Sex involves the risk of pregnancy, and when you take a risk you’ve got to be prepared to take responsibility. Otherwise, freedom is eroded - because if you aren’t responsible, then those people you hand your responsibility to will rightly want to govern your behavior.
So, yes, sex should require commitment. Specifically, commitment that any child that is generated be either provided for or aborted.
In olden times, when that risk was higher, the commitment was larger - i.e. marriage first. Now that the risk can be made pretty low, the commitment can be low - but it should still be there.
You should broaden your repertoire. Homosexual sex, oral, manual, anal … no pregnancy risk there.
No commitment required, just honesty.
Sex doesn’t involve commitment by itself, but it can, and there’s nothing wrong with that so long as it is clear from the outset.
Honestly, IMHO sometimes sex is just a body thing. No romance, just biology. But it’s true that the people involved have to be on the same page about this, or there will be unpleasant consequences. Sex should involve communication, but not necessarily commitment.
Assuming the OP is referring to emotional (rather than financial) commitment then sex between prostitute and client does not require it.
yeah emotional commitment only
I prefer sex with some kind of emotional commitment, but that does not imply monogamy in my mind. I have a few people who i have non-monogamous sex with, some who are in monogamous relationships and I don’t see very often, but I am pretty sure that when I got together with them again, we’d have sex.
Erek