It is more likely that I will have a greater respect and regard for a person whom I have developed some kind of personal relationship with, and will see and interact with on a regular basis, compared to a nameless person that I have no emotional relationship with and will never see again.
quote:
That still doesn't answer the question. How come a person who has casual sex with someone mean that they lack respect and responsibility toward that other person.
We are not talking about given individuals.
We are talking about human social interactions and tendencies as a whole.
In general it is much more likely that a given human will
tend to have a greater respect and concern for a person they have an emotional connection to and will interact with regularly than a nameless stranger.
This is clearly human nature.
quote:
Indeed... and this is more to the point... you suggested that people being taught to be responsible and respect others were less likely to have casual sex.
Probably.
quote:
Why would instruction in respect and responsibility result in less casual sex with others.
How can you have much regard for someone if you don't know them very well, or at all?
How can you be responsible regarding your own sexual health if you don't know your partner well enough to have any idea if you can trust that they will also be responsible?
quote:
It seems to me you are suggesting that monogamy and "serious" sex has something to do with respect and responsibility. I am not seeing the connection.
Part of having all the information to make an informed descision about having sex with another person must include getting to know one's potential partner well enough to be able to reasonably conclude that they are going to be respectful and responsible.
I don't really count "swinging communities" because these groups, as you have described them, seem to screen people in a way, and groups are able to enforce behavior better than a single person. In fact, I don't think I would count these groups as casual at all because everyone agrees ahead of time to adhere to certain standards, and the purpose of getting together is to have sex. It's planned.
Deep emotional intimacy adds meaning to sex for most people. Casual sex lacks this.
quote:
Oh there is no doubt that deep emotional intimacy CAN add meaning to sex for people. But there is no guarantee on that, and there is no reason why a person cannot find other aspects of life which also add meaning, sometimes great meaning, for sex. Casual sex can be extremely fulfilling and meaningful. It all depends why one is engaging in sex.
What you asked for was what casual sex lacked.
Casual sex does not, by definition, contribute to deep emotional connection between people. It can't, otherwise it wouldn't be
casual anymore.
I do not dispute that other things in life can contribute to deep emotional connection, or that casual sex cannot bee meaningful nor fulfilling.
But casual sex lacks deep emotional commitment between the participants, and that is what many people often say is a benefit of sex, and a reason to engage in it, at least some of the time.
It is interesting that you refer to emotional connection and commitment in such a negative way by using the word "entanglement".
quote:
Why?
Because it implies that you find emotional involvement inconvenient or undesireable.
But it is clear that sexual acts actively promote emotional bonding (like in the Bonobos) between people and they do have a great impact on people's lives.
quote:
That's sort of ironic. Yes I firmly agree that sex can promote the emotional bonding and impact on life for humans as it does for Bonobos. That is all casual sex and certainly not the same nature of emotional bonding and impact you were suggesting people should be taught and I was discussing.
So, since sex can and does promote emotional bonding and can and does have a large impact on many people's lives, we should let kids know that there is an emotional aspect to sex.
quote:
Teaching kids that sex should be tied in with longterm emotional bonds with singular people, in such a way that it makes choice of partner a longlasting and emotionally challenging situation... that that involves or will promote some form of respect and responsibility... is as mistaken as thinking abstinence will engender healthy sex choices.
When did I say we should be teaching that?
Since when are a "long-term emotional bond with a single person" and "purely casual sex with lots of different partners with zero emotional committment" the only two possibilities?
quote:
That's what I was talking about. My guess is you were not suggesting kids should be instructed in Bonobic models of sexual interaction.
Haha, no.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-30-2005 03:31 PM
™ Version 4.2