Sex, love, casual sex, and what's better, anyway?
Isn't sex with love more satisfying than a casual encounter?
This is a question that a couple of readers have asked me in the last month or so, and, interestingly, the attitude behind this question is reflected in many of the emails I get. Lots of people seem to agree that casual sex is morally okay, but that it's really just a placefiller for the Real Thing, that is, sex with a loved one. Sure, there might be good reasons to choose casual sex over sex in the context of a committed relationship, but assuming that someone could have both, why would she or he ever choose a casual encounter?
Let me see if I can break this down in a way that makes sense. I'm going to assume that everyone reading this blog is on board with general sex-positiveness, right? Oh, sure, we're all carrying around a little baggage here and there, but we basically agree that sex is good, and fun, and it's a moral choice that doesn't imply a need for confession every Sunday or guilty sneaking around, I hope. Okay, good.
And love is great, is it not? Being in love, or loving someone, feels good. It can be fun, connecting, intense, enlightening, and, in many other ways, wonderful.
These two things are not actually related. I love a lot of people in my life, only some of whom I have sex with. And I have sex with a lot of people, again, only some of whom I love. And every sexual partner is different, so every sex act is different, and not only from partner to partner, but from day to day. A shy, exploratory makeout session today may lead to a button-poppingly intense fuckfest next week, after all. But being in love is not a prerequisite for sexual evolution. From my point of view, simple familiarity, learning each other's patterns, will do that.
Love can heighten sexual intensity. And sex can increase intimacy in a romantic relationship. But they don't always, and other things can do the same. My most intense sexual encounters have been with someone so dysfunctional that love is not actually an option. On the other hand, I have very close loves with whom I rarely, if ever, have sex. We usually call these platonic loves friends, and for me (though I may be outside the norm on this), they are an indispensable part of my emotional landscape.
Assuming that sex with love is more rewarding than casual sex is conflating the issue, and it reflects the puritanical underpinnings of everyday life. I'll admit that this sometimes crops up for me, where I figure that someday, I'll stop fucking around and get serious. That may be true, but it doesn't mean that one thing is somehow better than the other. They are so very, very different that I can't realistically compare them. Apples and oranges, anyone?
Comments
I used to sincerely believe that casual sex was every bit as fun & enjoyable as "meaningful" sex, sometimes even better. Heaven knows I had plenty of it quite cheerfully, and even had a term for sex with someone who was dear to me but without a commitment: friendsex. However, in recent years (I'm verging on 37), it's seemed to me that I got really lucky in a lot of ways, dodged a lot of bullets on the STD issue and had my trust betrayed a time or two on the question of disease risk factors -- so now, I'm simply not comfortable having casual sex. The last couple of times I did, it just seemed to me that no amount of fantastic sex was worth even a limited worry of who my partner might have nailed recently & what they might have passed along which condoms wouldn't necessarily protect against -- or concern that the heat of the moment might prevent someone who's ordinarily quite trustworthy from fully disclosing risk factors. As a polyamorous woman, I have more than myself to worry about and be responsible concerning, as well. Not only *my* two lovers' health could be endangered by a "little white lie" on the part of a casual sex partner (of any one of us), but the health of their lovers, too! I'm philosophically against poly-fidelity, but while I'm not anti-casual sex, I'm no longer pro-casual sex either.
Posted by: Lil | April 16, 2006 1:24 PM
I was with you right up till the first sentence of that last paragraph, where you took your experience and generalized to everyone.
I can totally believe that for some people the two may be orthogonal. For me they are not. I have had a **LOT** of sex, and the best sex I've had has been in the context of an ongoing romantic relationship. And I don't see how this "reflects the puritanical underpinnings of everyday life". (Not that it doesn't, but I don't see that you've made a case that it does.)
I think casual sex is Just Fine, but just as the best food comes from trained chefs, the best sex I've ever had comes from the people I'm in love with.
(If you want to get technical about it, the best sex I've had is at the height of limerence which is not quite love, but is also in no way casual.)
Posted by: sapiophile | April 16, 2006 5:38 PM
sapio: Rereading my original post, I don't see where you're gathering that I'm generalizing my experience to everyone.
I always assume that other people have different experiences than I do.
Posted by: ClueChick | April 17, 2006 4:37 PM
sapio: I see it differently. Perhaps Clue didn't communicate it perfectly, but she seems to be trying to break down the assumption behind asking whether one kind of sex is better than the other, rather than trying to answer the question one way or the other. I think her answer applies even if the best sex you've had has been with people you love, and you expect that always to remain true.
Viewing her post in that light (and I think she went through a number of sentences to try to get us to view it in that light), her last paragraph isn't saying "you're wrong if you think sex with love is better". What I think it's saying is:
This isn't an either-or choice. The attitude that almost assumes it is, reflects the puritanical underpinnings of everyday life. The real answer may be that both is better than just one or the other.
(True, if you choose monogamy, you can't have both, but that doesn't change this. It just means you have to choose between "both" or "just sex with love", and you may have reasons for choosing the latter even if you think the former is better sexually.)
Posted by: Cos | April 19, 2006 6:41 PM
Cos: I have no idea what you are talking about. My objection was to cluechick's contention that people for whom deep emotional involvement is necessary for truly great sex are thereby reflecting puritanical social attitudes. I'm not even parsing your post enough to follow what your point is.
Posted by: sapiophile | April 19, 2006 10:25 PM
sapio: I'm confused as to where you see me making that contention. I'm saying that assuming that deep emotional connection is necessary for the sex to be "the best" reflects those puritanical underpinnings.
I read Cos's comments as clarifying my point that neither has to be better than the other, and even if one is better for one person doesn't mean that systemically, it'll be better for everyone.
Posted by: ClueChick | April 20, 2006 4:44 PM
I personally have had more than my share of casual sex and have, as others have pointed out, dodged the STD's with great luck. I am in currently in a monogamous relationship. It is the first "monogamous" relationship I've had that has been truly monogamous.
I will tell you right now that I absolutely miss the days of old. While my DH and I have a wonderful sex life; after nearly 6 years, some of the magic has certainly worn off and while we find ways to keep it spicy, there is something to be said for casual sex.
I absolutely hate to admit that my most toe-curling sex was during a one night stand. Emotionally though, it has been most fulfilling with my husband. Physically, it was more fulfilling when I had my choice of men. *grin*
Posted by: Barbie | April 24, 2006 2:44 PM
Are you sure about this?!?
Posted by: Flots Masriach | October 3, 2006 4:45 PM