Do you think less of anyone who engages in no-strings sex?

[redqueen]

Or just women?

Or do you not think less of people like that at all?

Just wondering, cause of some of the comments on that 'hollaback girl' thread.


And please, no whining about 'posts like this' in the lounge. If you know it might be contentious and you can't handle it, just stay out of it.

[noamnety]

1. A little less, yes.

I don't judge it from a religious-moral sense, but I view it as high risk behavior (immature) that involves another person but is primarily self-centered (also immature as far as moral development goes).

I would question their judgment and I would make some assumptions about whether they objectify people (vs. really caring about people) and whether or not they use people as a matter of course.

[redqueen]

3. So let's say you have two people who for whatever reason are unable

to form or maintain relationships at a certain point in their lives. Perhaps that inability results from severe abuse in childhood.

Those kind of people just should never have sex, right?

Cause they're just "using" each other? Is that it?

[noamnety]

10. You've put words in my mouth. Please don't do that.

I'm not looking for an argument. I haven't said anything about regulating behavior, or psychologically analyzing why people become detached or objectify other people. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.

If you were looking to attack anyone who disagreed with you, I wish you had put that as a disclaimer in your post.

[redqueen]

11. On the contrary, I simply read your answer, and formed a hypothetical situation...

in which your assumptions would be shown to be incorrect and quite judgmental indeed. Then I asked a question which would require you to apply that judgmental attitude to a situation in which it is IMO unfair. Sorry you reacted badly to that, but please don't take my challenging your response as an attack. It most certainly was not meant to be.

[noamnety]

22. I think less of people like "The pickup artist"

who view "relationships" as one way things to benefit themselves, and focus on how to manipulate people for self-serving goals without caring about the other person.

If you respect pickup-artist fans (male or female), hey, that's your right. I think less of them. :shrug:

[redqueen]

36. With all due respect...

you're focusing on a subset of people who engage in no-strings sex.

Not everyone who engages in it does so dishonestly. Only assholes do that... and assholes are like that in all aspects of their lives, not just their sex lives.

[noamnety]

41. If you read post 12, that's another way of phrasing what I'm trying to say.

I dunno, you seemed okay with that response. Maybe we're talking at odds with each other, but post 12 is a good to-the-point summary of my feelings.

[redqueen]

42. "If you respect pickup-artist fans (male or female), hey, that's your right. I think less of them."

No, we're not talking past each other.

And yes, I was okay with that response. That response wasn't an attempt to portray my opinion as being that liars are cool.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. No, it's their business what they do.

Although like any activity, sex can become an addiction, and so I do wonder if some of those who participate are doing so because they're trying to fill a void somewhere in their life that could use some introspection and perhaps therapy. But that's not really about no-strings sex at that point, it's about a psychological dysfunction, and so is a different category. But can there be healthy no-strings sex? Absolutely. And those who want to do so, I say, have at it. Just be safe. Just like I'd say to someone who wants to parachute in their kayak, or go downhill skiing, or race a car.

[redqueen]

4. Agreed.

And even for those who would do well to seek therapy... I'm not going to sneer at them and say they have smaller brains or some crap. I just hope they eventually get the help they need so they can have a more healthy and fulfilling life.

[Dr. Strange]

88. Rabrrrrrr is a slut.

So take his post with a grain of salt.

[redqueen]

89. This friend of mine uses a different definition of the word slut.

As in someone who cheats / lies / otherwise hurts people in order to get their jollies.

If it's used as a pejorative, I'll go with that definition.

[Rabrrrrrr]

109. It's not called being a slut, it's a memorial rite of symbolically bringing Shai'Hulud back to life.

Grain of salt. :eyes:

What's next - I'm a murderer for collecting the water of the hobos downtown to try to make Earth into a water planet?

[av8rdave]

5. Not at all

Everyone has their own way of handling that facet of life. If someone finds happiness fulfilling sexual needs in a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship, good on them. If someone else finds happiness fulfilling sexual needs on a "no strings" basis, good on them.

[Burma Jones]

6. Nope

Just be careful............

[abbeyco]

7. Absolutely not!

I'm a frequent indulger of 'no strings' sex and am fine with it, for me and anyone else.

Safety is key & if both folks know that there's nothing more to it than the sex, why the heck judge?

Great question, btw!

[flvegan]

8. Not at all. So what YOU doin'?

:hide:

[redqueen]

13. LOL

I'm all done sowing my wild oats now. :)

[Heidi]

9. No. I don't frame my opinion of a person's value around what they do with their own bodies. (nt)

[Writer]

12. I have in the past, yes.

And it's not because of the sex itself, but that it's typically accompanied by the person's nonchalant attitude about others' feelings.

[redqueen]

14. Yeah...

I dunno if it's so much typical or if those are just the people who seem to stick out more... but I can understand that. Assholes tend to try to ruin pretty much everything they involve themselves in.

[Writer]

18. I'm particularly sensitive to those who lack empathy.

So I suppose that, yes, those are the people that stick out more to me... otherwise, I really don't care what people do with their personal lives.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

15. Not really

because its none of my business. But it seems the Universe will tell us that the results of said experience are illusions and in the end, a waste of time............... :shrug:

[redqueen]

16. As much of a waste of time as a walk in the park.

Sure.

[Heidi]

19. "Waste of time" strikes me as a value judgment.

And shifting the judgment into the hands of "the Universe" doesn't make it any less judgmental. Where I come from, judging that someone is engaging in a "waste of time" isn't a compliment, any way ya cut it.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

51. That's not how

I intended the remark to be interpreted. What I meant was carnal pursuits, whether they be sexual, food or adrenalin are substitutes for something we miss in ourselves.............

[Iggo]

21. In my entire life, sex has never once been a waste of time. (n/t)

[jobycom]

25. I've come to the conclusion that the only real waste of time in life

is worrying about what the universe will think of us.

[Heidi]

26. Yep. That's right up there with attempting to control anything besides our own reactions. (nt)

[kayakjohnny]

17. I'm ok with it. For myself and for anyone else. Communication would be important so

that both parties understand the terms.

I have happened to have partners while in a well-defined relationship, but I'd be ok with the no-strings angle.

Just never met a woman who wanted type of arrangement.

If it were to happen, I'd be just fine with it.

Good question.

[Iggo]

20. Of course not.

People's sex lives are their own.

Keep it legal. Keep it safe. Have fun.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

23. Mammals following their biological urges

The charm of the whole "fuck buddy" thing escapes me. My feeling is that once someone steps over the line into screwing anything with a pulse at the drop of the hat just because he/she said "yes,", they might as well drink from the toilet and chase cars. And lick themselves in the middle of the living room when company's over for dinner.

I don't "think less" of men or women who do that in terms of "their right to live their life the way that they see fit."

Chances of me ever getting personally involved with a woman "engages in no-strings sex?"

Zero.

Just zero.

Her right to have that lifestyle, my right to have mine. I'm monogamous and no matter how fucking naive it may seem, I'm not a UPS driver. I don;t just drop my package and drive away.

:hide:

[redqueen]

37. Interesting choice of language.

I wonder why you chose to view people who have no-strings sex as "screwing anything with a pulse"... interesting, indeed.

I'm sure every woman who enjoys such things is absolutely heartbroken at the thought that you won't be dropping off your 'package' with her. :rofl:

[jobycom]

24. Not when it's with me.

The only way I think less of someone for "no-strings" sex is if they are lying about it. If they are supposed to be exclusive to someone else (based on their promises to that person, not on any societal standards), or if they are lying to the person they are sleeping with--pretending it's more than casual sex, for instance--then I think less of them (usually, but even there I can see exceptions). That's not about the sex, though. It's about the lying.

To me sex isn't a moral issue, but there are moral issues involved with it, mostly based on societal and cultural expectations built around it. A person expecting monogamy shouldn't be used by someone who has no interest in it, for instance. Or a person craving attention from a negligent parent shouldn't be used by someone just wanting to get laid. When expectations are unequal, the relationship is dishonest. I have a problem with that, and I think less of people who capitalize on such inequities for their own gratifications. But that's a different story. Two consenting adults (or nearly adults) who want the same thing (even if for different reasons) should feel or suffer no stigma for their actions.

Now I'm going to look up the hollaback girl thread, to see what this is about. :)

[Mopar151]

32. I'm with you - it's about honesty n/t

[redqueen]

38. Agreed.

Lying / hiding your intent is a separate issue.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Too broad a category. Sure, there are a bunch of pigs in all...

of the known genders who use and abuse or have underlying issues, but most of the people I have known to have a good time screwing around with no regrets are seemingly normal.

Too bad Plato's Retreat hasn't been around for years, but a night orgying there put these things in perspective and became almost tame by the time the pizzas were delivered. At least half the patrons were couples tired or wary of swing clubs and parties and everyone was obviously having a very good time. With no regrets.

Now, we've completely turned back that whole sexual revolution thing that maybe went a little too far anyway, and Victorian times are back, complete with everyone's secret vices in some closet. Except for homosexuality, which is out of the closet and semi-officially OK now, and that seems to be as much as society will tolerate for the nonce.

If nobody gets hurt and everybody involved agrees to it, what is the problem?

(I believe a larger problem than private "immorality" is public judgment, but that's just me.)

[WCGreen]

28. Who am I too Judge....

[sarge43]

29. None of my business unless they're tearing one off in my yard.

"You pevs, get off my lawn!"

[Dulcinea]

30. No.

Sometimes it's just what you need!

I've been married 13 years, so those days for me are over, but I had some no-strings sex when I was younger. It worked for me at the time. YMMV.

[LostInAnomie]

31. If they're adults they can do what they want.

It's nothing I should concern myself with.

[proteus_lives]

33. Depends.

If someone does it all the time? Yeah, I think less of them. Man or woman. I'm no saint, when I was younger I had encounters like that but people need to grow-up and realize that sex isn't a cure-all or solution to most problem.

[redqueen]

39. Interesting... so it's okay with you if they do it while they're young.

but if they don't stop, then you think less of them.

How very strange. I can't help but think it somehow ties into your own behavior. You stopped when you got older, and so you think they should do the same as you did. Hm.

[proteus_lives]

44. No, not just because they're young.

I don't judge people who have a few encounters like that. I judge people who seek it out constantly, espcially if they're older.

People do it because they need a self-esteem boost.

[redqueen]

49. Interesting criteria.

Also interesting that you know their motives. I don't doubt that some people may engage in it for that reason, but that is obviously not true of everyone who does it.

[tigereye]

110. Some might argue that any sexual encounter (unless one is paying, perhaps)

has "strings" or some sense of attachment, bonding, regard, or agreement.



Maybe you need to define the term "strings," RQ! :rofl:

[redqueen]

112. The strings are that there are no strings.

:P

No obligation to call and exchange pleasantries, no expectation of exclusivity or dates or whatever... just the possibility of a shared good time when the mood strikes both people at the same time.

[tigereye]

118. but the question may be can people maintain that....

I think if it works, fine.


It's a good question, btw, made me really think about my own long-married biases, viewing my own college escapades with a bit of a cool eye.

[redqueen]

119. I think it depends on the people.

Obviously if there are any feelings at all involved it's not going to work and someone's gonna get hurt.

Seems to me that it works best between friends... but not too close of friends, cause then there's that emotional aspect. More like buddies. Fuck buddies is a popular term for it. And I dunno about it working long term... I figure it's just like dating someone for a while, only you don't actually date them or engage in those long phone calls or have the infatuation part of it... you just hang out with them and have sex with them. In other words, it's not romantic... it's just a buddy that you get physical with.

[Withywindle]

34. Not at all.

My caveats (not cool to use people, be dishonest, etcetera) have already been covered. I actually wish it was easier to find true no-strings sex, but we have so much cultural and emotional baggage it's actually not easy to do. I like it a lot in theory and have no disrespect at all for people who manage to do it in reality.

[Urban Prairie]

35. Nope

I engaged in a LOT of one-night stands and very short, mainly sexual relationships in the 70s and 80s, BUT after looking back on my younger sowing wild oats years, it was very risky behavior, b/c IMO, not only was there the risk of impregnating my partners, there was and still is a much higher likelyhood of acquiring STDs, (for obvious reasons) and I was extremely fortunate that I never did.

[bigwillq]

40. No

I say go for it. Just be safe. Their life, their body, their choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. ..

:thumbsup:

[Brickbat]

43. Nope.

[Deep13]

45. Think less of them? How do I sign up?

I'm pretty much for any changes in social norms that reduce sexual repression. I've never bought into the idea that promiscuous women are whores or even that being a whore in fact is inherently bad.

[redqueen]

50. What kills me is that this behavior is viewed as natural for men...

but for women, it for some reason makes them either stupid or means they have no self respect or whatever. It's just stupid, all these pretzel-logic contortions people go through in order to cling to that Virgin/Whore dichotomy.

[TreeHuggingLiberal]

90. Totally agree

The dichotomy of sexual acceptance in relation to the sexes always astounds me. I would have thought by now we'd have made it past the differential association between men and women (e.g. "whore" vs. "stud) participating in open sexual relationships.

[Sky Masterson]

46. I think more of them ;)

I think salt and peppa said it best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q96-e042bk
salt 'n pepa - none of your business (original video)

[Taverner]

47. No - not at all

Sex is a passtime, just like badminton, croquet or finger painting

And it beats all of those activities HANDS DOWN

[Orrex]

48. Maybe I wouldn't think less of them if they'd keep the curtains open.

Pretty uptight for a "no-strings" couple, if you ask me.

[BreweryYardRat]

53. Not unless they're stupid about it.

USE. PROTECTION.

I've done it myself, and I usually wind up feeling hollow inside afterwards, so I'm not really sure it's for me. But it if works for other folks...

[HopeHoops]

54. ABSOLUTELY - What fun is sex without the occasional bondage game?

:evilgrin:

[tXr]

56. I can't believe

it took 54 posts for someone to reply with that answer.

[HopeHoops]

76. I thought it was rather obvious.

:shrug:

[Inspired]

55. The older I get, the more I say go for it.

Who gives a crap what other people do in their bedrooms anyway?

[LeftyMom]

57. Depends on what you mean.

Do I think less of them generally? Not unless they go about it badly- cheating on people, causing drama, etc. But I think less of people who create drama and don't sleep around, so it's the drama and not the sex that bothers me.

That said, I would scale down my estimation of that person, within the specific context of potential future partners, were I looking. Because that's definitely not behavior I want any part of, personally.

[cherish44]

58. any sex between consenting adults as long as there's no cheating involved is cool with me

and really none of my business for the most part

[begin_within]

59. No, I don't think less of them.

Especially if they are honest about it up front, clearly saying this is NSA, and if that's agreed by both parties, there's no hurt done and nothing wrong with it. I think more of them for their honesty.

[S n o w b a l l]

60. Not at all...

As long as both people are on the same wavelength and honest with each other. I think it can serve a purpose. Physical intimacy can be very healing and rewarding if both respect each other.

[Odin2005]

61. No, their body, their choice.

I find sex without love to be boring, but whatever floats one's boat I guess.

[Capn Sunshine]

62. not in the slightest, are you busy later?

:)

[davsand]

63. I am kind of surprised at how many say it is ok, but, "I want nothing to do with them."

Seems to me that a lot of people claim to have no problem with sex for the sake of sex, but they make a huge deal of saying they want no part of anyone who engages in or ever practiced that behavior. There is very much an element of judgment at work in spite of how it gets denied.

As long as nobody is lying about it, what, EXACTLY, is wrong with honest sex between two protected people?

Maybe my attitudes are too much a function of the late 70's, but I always figured that I had a history when I met my husband, he had a history of his own (wouldn't have WANTED him without his own history, really...) and as long as we were telling each other the truth about both the past and the future it was our business, ONLY.

Monogamy is a choice, and how you choose to act on that promise is part of what defines you as a person. How many sexual parters you had before that relationship really doesn't matter much when it comes down to it.



Laura

[redqueen]

66. I completely agree with you.

:)

Well, except for the part about being surprised. That stuff doesn't surprise me anymore.

[LeftyMom]

71. In the future if you're going to quote me, go ahead and reply directly, k?

I don't give a flying fuck what anybody did *in their past* provided they haven't brought anything catching into their present. Lord knows I'm not a virgin, my partner certainly isn't, and I rather doubt I'd have much patience for a partner who hadn't picked up a trick or three anyhow. But, as I expect monogamy at this point in my life (which probably makes me a member of the unenlightened anti-sex brigade anyhow, but whatfuckingever) I'm not really interested in anybody who wants sex outside of a committed, monogamous relationship at this point in their life.

And you know what? That's my right. I get to establish whatever criteria I want for my relationships, because my body is not a public utility, and I don't owe anybody access.

[davsand]

78. Wasn't attempting to quote YOU or anyone else, really.

Sorry if you thought I was coming after you personally.



Laura

[Dead_Parrot]

64. String's no good. You need some good rope, or handcuffs.

wait, what?

[Yavin4]

65. Why Would You Need Strings During Sex?

Am I doing something wrong?

[Richard Steele]

67. No, Not always. I used to, back when I was young...

But I've been a few places and seen a few things
since I was young, and I'm a bit more open-minded
than I was back then.

Turns out that SOME folks who engage in no-strings
GroupSex with a room full of their friends AREN'T
actually creepy perverts, they're just open-minded folks
who have a seriously TRUSTFUL relationship with their friends.

Imagine my surprise!

[clyrc]

68. I would have when I was younger

but not now. Go ahead and wring every bit of solace out of life that you can, as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process.

[Forkboy]

69. No.

It's not really my thing (I really am a romantic at heart), but it's not something I judge people over either. What works for them is their business. End of story for me.

[MrScorpio]

70. What's good for the goose is good for the gander

Double standards are for hypocritical prudes

[smalll]

72. Strangely enough, I think less of the men who do it.

For men to be able to pull that off, they tend to have to be one-pointed, obsessively focussed douchebag pick-up artists. Also, I resent the current regime of de facto polygamy which they dominate. Women just have to give in to it all. Somehow, I find that easier to forgive.

[Bucky]

73. My first thought went to how one might use string cheese during the act of love

But yes, I do find people who sleep around a lot to be kind of pathetic. If it's "no strings" in a regular relationship, like a friends with benefits thing, that doesn't seem so bad--I leave people to figure out the unique grounds of their own relationships. But if it's a multiple partners thing it just seems like your talking about a person desperately trying to avoid the Oracle's advise: γνῶθι σεαυτόν.*

*"know thyself"

[Arkansas Granny]

74. Not at all, as long as both parties understand that it's no-strings sex.

It would be unfair of one partner to take advantage of another's feelings by leading them to believe that it was something else.

[NewJeffCT]

75. as long as they're hurting anybody

it's their business.

[caitxrawks]

77. honestly, yeah.

It doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman. Sex has messy consequences if the correct precautions aren't taken. Gender shouldn't have anything to do with it.

I tried that friends with benefits shit once. I ended up getting hurt. Stupid me.

[hippywife]

79. I don't really think

I've ever really had no strings attached sex and I sewed many a wild oat in my day. :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. Less? I think MORE!

Regardless of gender, ça va sans dire.

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

81. I don't think about that at all

I couldn't give two shits no matter the gender. None of my business since I'm not involved with said theoretical persons in the first place.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. No

but I don't think any more of them either. Matter of fact, I just don't think about people's sex lives much at all.

[pitohui]

83. i think less of people who have never engaged in no-strings sex

i may as well admit i have never respected the type of person -- usually a female person, i'm sorry to say -- who has to lie to herself that she's in love every time she needs a good screw

[Schema Thing]

107. +1

[Bucky]

84. A: "only if it's me"

[JonLP24]

85. I don't care what people do with their sex lives

If I were to care, no, no-strings sex wouldn't bother me at all for either gender.

[woo me with science]

86. Interesting....I hadn't seen the "hollaback" thread.

The threads I immediately thought of were the "gang rape" threads in which a woman accused men of raping her, but a camera ultimately showed the sex was consensual.

As per usual, the victim feminists here insisted that the woman was still to be pitied or exonerated because she must somehow be vulnerable, damaged, or didn't fully understand what she was getting into. Surely no woman would ever choose that type of sex unless a nefarious man had pre-abused and warped her delicate psyche.

In answer to your poll, no. Not as long as both parties are honest about their expectations and aren't harming anyone else by what they do.

[redqueen]

87. *roffle* @ "victim feminists"...

*insert wanking smiley here*

[woo me with science]

91. I put that in there just for you.

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

92. Couldn't care less.

And it's not my business anyways, unless it involves my goat. :)

[gmoney]

93. Is there such a thing?

Every "no strings" thing I've ever heard of actually had more strings than melted mozzarella...

[redqueen]

96. Yep. (nt)

[hunter]

94. Don't leave your used condoms in the park. It's gross.

Some kinds of litter are much worse than others.

[redqueen]

97. What makes you think those disgusting people

were engaging in no strings sex? :wtf:

[hunter]

99. Who says they were not?

When it's about sex, I guess I'd say don't harm other people and don't leave a mess. Whatever else is going on, with or without strings, why would I care?

But please, do keep the noise down if I'm trying to work.

[redqueen]

100. Exactly... why do people care?

They just like to feel self-righteous, is my guess.

As for assuming the disgusting people are sport-fuckers... yeah, lots of those types of assumptions in this thread. Odd.

[abq e streeter]

95. hell no--added to a longing for the "good ol' days" when I had both an interest in ,and access to it

[PVnRT]

98. No

If all parties involved are cool with it, who cares?

[Fleshdancer]

101. nope.

I do wonder what the results would look like though if you posted a poll asking this.

[Political Heretic]

102. I don't care.

[Kali]

103. only if they are making too much noise and keeping me awake

that goes for strings-attached too

[arbusto_baboso]

104. As long as they aren't "cheating" on a spouse or partner....

Good on them.

I know many people with open marriages, and they seem happier, and stay married longer it seems. That includes me and Mrs. Arbusto.

[NJmaverick]

105. Unless they want or are willing to sleep with me, I don't really care one way or the other

[DerekG]

106. No, but I think less of people who blab on about it

There are two things I don't want to hear about: someone's sex life, and someone's bowel movements.

[ironflange]

108. Doesn't bother me

If I feel anything at all, it's jealousy. :evilfrown:

[BurtWorm]

111. No.

[TK421]

113. I'm almost embarrassed to ask what you mean by "no strings sex"

can you elaborate on that? I've never heard that term, but then again there are plenty of terms I'm not familiar with these days

[redqueen]

115. See post 112.

[TK421]

116. Ah, alright...thanks for that, and my answer would be no n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

114. Not at all. n/t

[unpossibles]

117. not really but whatever - to each their own

what DOES bother me is when sexism creeps in, as it almost always does in the BS double standard where women who enjoy sex are called whores or worse.

EDIT:
I should clarify. I don't have a problem with no-strings sex, but I do sometimes worry about some friends of mine, mainly that they are being safe if they do it a lot. I'm not really into it personally though.