Tuesday, 01 March 2011
-
What's Wrong with Casual Sex?
[Editor's Note: This is a candid article about sexual morality. Anyone sensitive to topics of this nature is advised to exercise discretion. Please refer to the Revelife Behavioral Code of Conduct before commenting if you are unsure of what language is considered appropriate.]Casual sex is when two people who barely know each other or who are not in a loving , committed relationship, have sex for pleasure's sake alone. This practice is often defended by sighting mutual consent and the lack of harm done. I would like point out that the "lack of harm" refers only to direct physical harm, though broken heart s and souls and sexually transmitted diseases are still at risk. Nonetheless, I also argue that the "lack of harm" has little bearing on the moral significance of that particular action.
Casual sex is wrong because it attempts to separate our physical selves from our emotional selves, and if we are to live integrated, good lives, these cannot be separated.
From a purely physical standpoint, sex is as physically close as two people can be. Within the marital embrace, two people are as closely united as humanly possible. Even on the physical level, this is no small thing. The unique quality of the sexual relationship is not something shared by other forms of mutually consensual pleasure such as a game of cards or a massage.
Given this, it is hard to see why anyone would want to waste the closest physical connection possible on someone they did not truly care for. Does it not make sense to save a unique action for a unique person such as a husband or wife?
The person arguing in favor of casual sex might reply that spouses are emotionally close, and that the emotional connection is what makes marriage and relationships special. And this is definitely true! Relationships are also a unique sharing of the self on an emotional and mental level.
But relationships are not only emotional, they are also physical. Just as every human person has emotions, a mind, and a heart, every person is a soul enfleshed in a body. Our bodily, physical reality is just as important to who we are as are our emotions. It takes, eyes, skin, a brain, and more to experience our lives and give expression to our being. Because of this, the body not a dispensable side-effect in our lives.
Arguments for casual sex separate our physical actions (such as sexuality) from our emotional and personal being, but this is not possible because of the integral nature of our bodies to who we are. On the contrary, the body (which includes the performance of the actions we choose) defines us just as much as our emotions do.
Because our bodies cannot be separated from our being and are an integral part of everything we do, we cannot ignore the physical aspects and effects of sexuality. It is wrong to pretend that our physical actions do not effect who we are. They do, and sex especially does.
To be fully integrated in body and mind, the actions and feelings should match. Thus, our emotional exclusivity and connection should be matched in the physical connection of intercourse. On the flip side, the physical connection of sexuality is not properly integrated with our whole selves (mind and body) if it does not coincide with a committed emotional connection.
This means that to live authentic, integrated, human lives, sexuality must take place within the context of a deep, loving relationship. A relationship, that I will argue, has to be marriage (as you can read about here).
Do you think that casual sex is permissible? Does the author's argument for unifying the emotional and physical parts of ourselves make sense to you? How should we approach difficult moral topics?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: StephanieP
- Name: StephanieP
- About Me: Stephanie is a fledgling Catholic theorist with a magnifying glass at the intersection of faith and culture, and theology and technology. She holds a degree in Religious Studies from the University of Virginia and is pursuing an MA in Theology at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Though a penniless writer, Stephanie is eternally grateful for her starving artist husband.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 102 Views: 0 59684 Comments: 0 1789 View all posts by StephanieP
Comments (52)
Well, the author makes an air-tight case against "casual sex." She defines it. Asserts that emotions and physical acts cannot be separated and then essentially says that sex is the most emotionally close physical act a person can have. So. If you agree with all her assumptions, you cannot disagree with her conclusion.
That said, I think the decision to have casual sex is a personal one that should not be judged by others -- morally or otherwise. We are essentially physical creatures of desire. Even Adam and Eve gave in to physical pleasure. Sex can be separated from emotion with little difficulty for many people. For those who do, sex may be as pleasurable as drinking a $200 bottle of cabernet. There needn't be an emotional "connection" with the person you drink it with. It is purely a sensual experience. Sex can be the same way.
So in a nutshell, he who has never sinned should throw the first stone.
I'm not saying I advocate for casual sex, but I think your argument excludes one of the biggest reasons people do engage in casual sex: this is the need TO fill an emotional void. In that respect, I don't think the person is separating the physical from the emotional at all - they're trying to combine the two. I think people give more stock to the physical reasons, because they're outright, they're what everyone talks about, what is easily portrayed etc. - when I guarantee you, most of the people who engage in casual sex are trying to cope with something.
the problem is that emotionally, sex means nothing. if i want to learn more about someone, we go for coffee, have dinner, play video games, etc. the usual hang-out stuff. you aren't going to learn anything particularly deep about your partner in the middle of sex (unless, of course, it turns you on to have a monologue going on in the background...).
the other flaw is that you're making an assumption:
"Casual sex is wrong because it attempts to separate our physical selves
from our emotional selves, and if we are to live integrated, good
lives, these cannot be separated."
i agree for the most part. but having your emotional and physical selves integrated simply means that both aspects of you are on the same page. in this respect, casual sex isn't a problem as long as both partners realize that there is nothing more to it. they are perfectly integrated. you're making a fallacious assumption: that everyone feels some sort of emotional attraction along with physical attraction. i have had both casual and meaningful sex. i can't really say i found either too preferential.
I also think this argument against casual sex is well-reasoned and laid out (pardon the pun). In my more well-adjusted moments I would probably agree with nearly all of it, but sometimes living in the moment takes over.
It does seem to me, however, that as nyfemme points out many people are able to separate sex and emotion - with varying degrees of success mind you. The free-love hippy sixties can sound pretty nirvanic! A person who has casual sex with multiple partners just to try to feel better about her or himself can be very sad.
I think the bigger issue that comes into play is when two people with different views of sex have a relationship. When a person who has disconnected sex from emotion in their past enters a relationship with someone who has not, there is a great likelihood of that relationship being very painful. The person who has disconnected emotion from sex cannot appreciate or understand the view of sex that the other person has - and visa versa.
StephanieP,
The fact that men often become violent when a sexual relationship is over means they were becoming integrated or "one flesh".
1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Chuck
I think that the problem with arguments against this are the same problems with arguments for it - no two people are alike. For some people it's permissible and for some people it isn't. I think that people need to figure out what is right for them in every circumstance and that's the best that they can do.
Also, I think that for many people sex is far less emotional depending on the circumstances. People who are engaging in casual sex are putting the emphasis on the "casual" part, not the "sex" part. I think that oftentimes, sex only becomes more emotional when you are actually emotionally engaged with your partner. Do I think that's the best kind of sex? Yes. Do I think that's the only permissible kind of sex? No.
As for how we should approach difficult moral topics - I say that approaching them at all is a step in the right direction, but people also need to be open-minded to actually changing their mind based on information or other points of view, not just open to listening.
"Casual sex is wrong because it attempts to separate our physical selves
from our emotional selves, and if we are to live integrated, good
lives, these cannot be separated."
This is all you had to say, AMEN!
I have no idea how someone could relate drinking with someone to having sex with them... some of these comments made me feel so uncomfortable. God bless you for writing this. Sadly, it seems it fell upon deaf ears. The person who said people are filling an emotional void - they should go to God for that void and that is where the Christianity lacks - but whatever, this is just a Christian blogging site, right?
I thank you for writing this - I should have skipped reading the comments. I thought there were going to be more positive/Christian comments... I would also like to add... I heard no judgment on your part at all within this written piece. It's unfortunate that someone who considered all of your information "assumptions" and then make the typical grand assumption that the "Christian is judgmental."
Be blessed... thank you for taking the time to construct this written piece.
"Casual sex is wrong because it attempts to separate our physical selves from our emotional selves, and if we are to live integrated, good lives, these cannot be separated."
This is an arbitrary assertion with no factual basis. What does it mean to be "integrated?" What does it mean to be "good?" On what do you base the concept of physical and emotional "selves?" Everything following this statement is purely conjecture and personal opinion.
Thanks for sharing, though.
Well, as long as we live on this planet, it's going to be casual sex going on for all kinds of reason.
it is important to understand value and attitude, because attitude is more important than fact.
Casual sex is wrong, because then conception wouldn't be very immaculate, would it? teehee I love Christians.
I think I understand the perspective being used here although I find myself disagreeing with the statement "
Casual sex is wrong because it attempts toseparate our physical selves from our emotional selves, and if we are
to live integrated, good lives, these cannot be separated."
even though I agree that premarital sex is wrong.
I do not believe that the basis of morality is physical/emotional. I believe that the basis is in God.
At any rate, the defiance against God's naturally designed order and function of Sex make premarital sex a act of sin against God and I believe the emotional/physical harm that can be done in this pursuit merely add to the consequences of this defiance.
Note- I am considering that if the emotional/physical harm were the source or cause of something being sinful, then if you removed those outcomes the act could then be viewed as permissible. This is another reason why I do not believe that premarital sex is deemed "wrong" because of possibly harmful outcomes.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
I think you are looking at marriage from an illusion. There is a book called "The Marriage Myths" and the truth is that marriage just makes you married. You can be married and be lonely. You can be married and have irreconcilable differences because once someone is married they are married to an irreconcilable person. The truth is that half of the people who are married are unhappy. You are also married to a sinner who has fallen short of the glory of God but may have found grace in God's eyes. But Paul says you are going to have trouble in the flesh.
@ecstatic_tranquility@xanga - "The person who said people are filling an emotional void - they should go to God for that void and that is where the Christianity lacks - but whatever, this is just a Christian blogging site, right?"
I understand that, and I agree with you - don't get me wrong. I am just saying the reality is that people don't much do that. When a person is trying to cope with something, their judgement is very much muddled, and they ALWAYS take up an instantaneous road of some kind - because obviously that's what fills it the fastest. I am not saying that's how it should be, but it is how people (sinners) react. And if a person does not or cannot seem to be able to reach for God to help fill the void, rather than judging said person, the rest of the Body of Christ then needs to step in, providing that support, and truly live up to its name.
The point of my original comment is that her argument doesn't include one of the biggest, yet hidden reasons that people engage in casual sex. And that does a big disservice to the people who need it the most --the ones doing the sin.
@ultravioletskies08@xanga - Thank you for clarifying. That means a lot - I think I was also in "negative frame of mind" after reading some comments. That is a very valid point - perhaps one gone unsaid?
I've walked in the shadows in my past and wish I had Christian wisdom when I was younger. I feel like this explanation would have ripped me away from things I never identified as "wrong."
Thank you for your time and further explanation.
@TravelingStranger@xanga - You are completely right. I was just trying to approach it from a more secular perspective to reach people who may not believe in God like I do.
@a12906@xanga - You make insults based on pure assumption about something she never said. Aren't you just intelligent?
it actually took me a long while to understand the concept of "casual sex" and the implications behind it.
For one, casual sex is never "casual" (for me anyways). Sure it was fun, in the moment, we were drunk (sometimes) - but for the most part I feel like crap afterward. I understand the basis of casual sex and that him and I were not supposed to form any kinds of attachments or connection, but I couldn't help being upset over his indifference in calling or keeping in touch. For the most part, it tore me up emotionally and spiritually and it was more pain than worth the pleasure.
Someone once told me that every time you get physically intimate with someone, you form a soul bond whether you like it or not, and you give a little bit of yourself away. I didn't believe this until I made all the mistakes and went through all the emotional turmoil.
It's not always so black and white as the author puts it, but I understand where this post is coming from.
@ecstatic_tranquility@xanga - Thanks for responding :--) Yay~ but seriously, yes, I agree it has gone unsaid. I feel like many Christians especially do not want to put in the effort to work with people like this through their hurdles that this particular reason has seriously gone to the wayside, not even acknowledged. This leaves the person struggling with the emotional issues to continue to rely upon things like casual sex (or what have you) to fill these things - and the emotional issues get so buried underneath that an expression of them becomes extremely difficult, and nowhere near the surface to access. Thus everyone assumes it is solely out of pleasure (which can be a part of it) but I think the larger part is emotional toil and an attempt to cope instantaneously.
@Kazydai@mancouch - lol Yes I am intelligent. You know why? 'Cause I'm not Christian. So fuck off! hahaha
@Kazydai@mancouch - By the way, who makes a seperate account to attack someone instead of just locking down their regular one? I apologize, you are CLEARLY more intelligent than I. lmao
Putting aside the issue of morality for a moment, there are practical consequences of casual sex. (This comes from a collective view of my friends, most of whom are non-Christian, and have a variety of life goals and experiences with relationships).
Our society (and many others) views sex as the finish line in a race. For people who are into casual sex, there's usually not much else to do except look for the next race. There is such a focus on the finish line that they don't take the time to see if the person they're running next to has other qualities that would bring more longer-term, relationship-type happiness. These same people often declare that they are looking for a more committed relationship, but they let their sex drive sabotage the process that leads to what they really want when they're not horny.
So while they like the casual sex, it rarely leads into a lasting relationship, even if they are looking for one.
That said, I have non-Christian friends who have held back their sex drive, even when there's been potential to have casual sex. Most of those friends are either married or in a long-term relationships now, and derive great satisfaction from having something (sex) to share with one person that they do not share with anyone else anymore.
A secret loses its worth if you tell it to everyone.
@Kazydai@mancouch - The modern version of "pearls before swine" is "Don't feed the trolls." a12906 will get eventually get bored and leave when nobody responds to his/her flame comments.
@poosywhistle@xanga - You're quite right, but the ones who suck at it are just so fun to mess with sometimes.
@a12906@xanga - I can assure you, there is only one of me here.
@Kazydai@mancouch - Then you must only have your account to troll people. Why else is there absolutely nothing on your page?
@poosywhistle@xanga - You're kind of right.