Talk:Casual sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Addition of "Unprotected"

I added the word unprotected in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph because without it it sounded like it was shunning any type of sex, not just unprotected. If you disagree, feel free to change it back. It's just my opinion. --24.13.233.141 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of material more suited to an essay on morality

I've removed the following because it sounds like an essay on morality and contains lot of weaseling, "in some cultures" etc. Of no use to anyone.

i.e. an instance of a non-formalised sexual encounter outside of the predominant sexual norm. The degree of discrimination (no-saying) appropriate to human sexual behaviour is socially regulated according to culturally specific norms.
In some cultures, unrestrained sexual activity may be considered inappropriate. Some consider sexual engagement without a view to commitment or relationship-building, in other words "sex for sex' sake" alone, shameful. Others contend that it is in fact the purest form of libidinal expression. Sexual activity beyond the socially prescribed parameter is pejoratively referred to as casual sex.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree that most of that seems like rhetoric. I do, however, think that there could be some mention that some people see casual sex as inappropriate and even reckless, while others see it as being okay and acceptable. I will leave that up to someone else to add to the article if they see fit. --BeastRHIT 04:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added something. Something referenced would be better; I just tried to provide a framework for links to other articles, which frankly need work too. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why no mention to the legendary bad movie (which I've attempted to watch all the way through MANY times on TBS Superstation on a weekend at like, 2:20AM or something, only to give up a little more than an hour point!) 'Casual Sex?' (1988), w/ Lea Thompson, Victoria Jackson and Andrew "Dice" Clay? I think it's Wikipedia worthy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094846/

[edit] Religious View

  • "Casual sex became socially acceptable, and divorce and abortions became easier to obtain."
  • "While casual sex became increasingly acceptable in certain subcultures, counteradvocacy of sexual abstinence also increased. Changes in the legal structure providing easier access to divorce and abortion have also posed significant religious dilemmas"

Although there may have been "counteradvocacy" of sexual abstinence, and it may have posed religious dilemmas, is this the place for it? The article is about "casual sex" not about "Religious views of sexuality".

The first statement says it cleanly, and in a neutral POV, not making any comment about whether it was a good thing, a bad thing, but just stating how the approach to casual sex changed in the 60's and 70's during the sexual revolution.

The change in from the 50's to th 70's clearly was from casual sex being not socially accepted, to becoming socially acceptable. We aren't talking about whether it is now, or whether ot should be, or whether you or I agree with peple who have casual sex or not.

Maybe if you add another section about the nineties, you could talk about how casual sex has declined, and abstinence has come to be advocated more frequently, and how HIV and AIDS has struck down many people who were promiscuous, had casual unprotected sex. Atom 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I added the {{POV}} non-neutrality tag because I felt the article was biased towards a conservative viewpoint. The article over-emphasizes the viewpoints of people who think casual sex is immoral. --Strangerer 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've since removed the sections I felt were non-neutral/biased (the two quotations). I'll leave the {{POV}} up for a little bit in case someone disputes the edits I made in removing those quotations. --Strangerer 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casual sex vs. extra-marital sex

Wikipedia distinguishes Casual sex from extramarital sex, and rightly so.

I think that many conservatives object not to casual sex per-se, but to all forms of extra-marital sex. I think that people who object to extramarital sex generally use a fundamentally different argument and different reasoning from people who object to casual sex and promiscuity. In particular, there are those with liberal views on many aspects of sexuality (including extra-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.) that object to casual sex on moral grounds. The articles on promiscuity and extramarital sex are the appropriate places to put material on views specific to these types of sex. We should limit material on this article to views specific to casual sex. Cazort 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitutes and swinging

Here's a question - does sexual activity such as the use of prostitutes, or participation in organised swinging, also count as casual sex? These occur outside the context of romantic relationships, but are arguably quite formal in nature. 217.155.20.163 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've added something to reflect this.

[edit] Very definition is possibly POV

I think that definition of casual sex used in this article is too narrow and is moving into the realm of POV. Only one source is cited, and that book has a very specific bias (it is written from a feminist perspective, and it argues specific views about casual sex in the context of women's sexual liberation). This use conflicts slightly with a couple dictionary definitions I found online. The term "casual sex" is often used without being defined and it is used in different contexts--it's not defined precisely and I think that this article wrongly leads one to believe that it does have a single, precise definition. For example, some people use the term to refer to any sex outside of a romantic relationship, whereas others use the term to refer to sex without any sort of emotional attachment. These are two very different definitions. I am going to change this, but I'd appreciate others giving this some thought and possibly looking for sources citing other perspectives too and finding better ways to word this; I'm not the best writer. Cazort 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I am suggesting that One-night stand and Anonymous sex be merged with casual sex as sections within this article. They are aspects of the same topic. SilkTork 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they should remain separate pages. Anonymous sex and a one-night stand are basically subsets of casual sex. Anonymous sex has unique risks associated with it and is quite different from other forms of casual sex. It has also been studied as a phenomenon of its own, quite extensively; the pages might be small enough to consolidate now but if they were adequately populated by material from the scholarly literature, I think having them together in one page would be muddled. Keeping them separate helps to clarify these distinctions. Cazort 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel that the One-night stand article should remain separate from the Casual sex article. I'm not too sure on how I feel about the subject of the Anonymous sex article on this matter, however. Flyer22 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I also feel that One-night standshould remain seperate from Casual sex as casual sex may repeat itself with the same partner and be in itself a form of a relationship although with low commitment as a one-night-stand is very close to anonymous sex Anonymous sex and is not repeated with the same partner.Site310.13 23 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag from these three articles, seeing as at this time...the consensus is not to merge. Flyer22 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I briefed a little about them in this article, but individual articles are long enough for separate articles. Charm-sto 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)