The spirituality of casual sex?

[Slopeshoulder]

I have a few minutes to kill, so thought I’d bounce this off y’all.

For debate: can casual, recreational, uncommitted and even one-night sex between unmarried people be morally OK and even spiritually positive? If not, why not?
(Please read the entire OP before replying)

Background
Of course, it is deeply embedded in Christian moral teaching and culture to teach that all sex other than committed and married sex is wrong. Let’s stipulate that the tradition has taught that. But let’s set it aside for a minute.
Let’s also stipulate that a mainstream reading of the bible would seem to support this traditional teaching. But let’s set it aside for a minute.
And for the sake of this thread, let’s also set aside the “sovereignty� argument which would say something is right or wrong because God allegedly says it’s right or wrong, simply because not doing so would make this thread moot.
Lastly, for the sake of this thread, let’s stipulate that fully informed consent, birth control and a clean bill of health apply.

Hypothetical Analogy
Imagine a hypothetical analogous situation (and please excuse all unintended puns): imagine two master musicians who come from different musical traditions, different countries, and different backgrounds. They share no language other than maybe a few English words like “hi� “bye’ “yes� “no� “good� “bad� “stop� “more� and “thanks.� But they are fluent in music. They have never met before. They are intrigued by each others appearance and vibe. They get their instruments out. They start to communicate with music, finding common ground, listening, suggesting, floating ideas, trying new things, and improvising to greater complexity. Over the course of an hour or two, they create some incredible music, trancelike and passionate, new and fresh, all improvised, highly memorable, worthy of being recorded, but not recorded and never to be repeated. In the end, they have connected deeply in the only way they can, created something beautiful, been in the moment, and “touched� each other. They are elated and spent. They smile, embrace, express thanks, and leave. Perhaps they will do it again sometime, but life takes them elsewhere and they make no commitment, no contact, record deal or tour. Bu the memory lingers and is fond.
*

Discussion
Improvising musicians (jazz, blues, indian, jam, bluegrass, etc) do that all the time, and often across genres and across cultures. Little gets recorded, little lasts. many enjoy it and some consider it a deeply spiritual experience of human connection and creation across borders and in the moment.
Can’t casual be sex the same? Why is it different, why is it wrong? Why is it not very right indeed? Many non-religious people think it is a good thing. As do many nominally religious people. But why wouldn’t very religious people embrace this as well (if we set aside traditional teachings and the sovereignty argument)? Whassup with that?

(BTW, I’m super monogamous and blissfully married. Just wonderin.’)

What say you?

[Jrosemary]

For debate: can casual, recreational, uncommitted and even one-night sex between unmarried people be morally OK and even spiritually positive?

I don't see why not--under certain circumstances. I suspect the event won't be "spiritually positive" if the couple in question are cheating on their significant others, so I'd say don't try this unless you're single or in an open relationship. And both halves of the couple in question should be consenting adults. (Nothing spiritual about rape or sleeping with someone who's underage.) And I think the spirituality of the event would suffer if the aftermath leads to an STD, so let's throw safe sex in as a given. But if you meet all those requirements, it could happen.

Just one thing--if it's a truly incredible spiritual experience, I doubt it will remain just a one-night stand! (Why wouldn't you want to be with that person again?)

[Wootah]

I just don't think life works out like that.

Also the analogy would make more sense to me if it was either:

- two non-musicians (as that would reflect the case of casual sex better)
- or two-professionals at sex, just people who have sex regularly, who are like the skilled musicians and then the problem is that they are seeking out those jam sessions and ... hey ... maybe that is why I like concert music!?!
- or finally I suspect the analogy better suits married couples who are also like the skilled musicians, professionals at sex. Only they care for the music they make long after the trumpet has played.

[Slopeshoulder]

For debate: can casual, recreational, uncommitted and even one-night sex between unmarried people be morally OK and even spiritually positive?

I don't see why not--under certain circumstances. I suspect the event won't be "spiritually positive" if the couple in question are cheating on their significant others, so I'd say don't try this unless you're single or in an open relationship. And both halves of the couple in question should be consenting adults. (Nothing spiritual about rape or sleeping with someone who's underage.) And I think the spirituality of the event would suffer if the aftermath leads to an STD, so let's throw safe sex in as a given. But if you meet all those requirements, it could happen.

Yes, all stipulated in the OP.

Just one thing--if it's a truly incredible spiritual experience, I doubt it will remain just a one-night stand! (Why wouldn't you want to be with that person again?)

Well, the premise is based on the notion that the only connection/communication these people have is sexual. Their broader selves are not involved. Many people report this kind of experience in a positive light, and I have also had it in the distant past (zero in common, incredible sex, for months). The question is, is that narrow connection self-validating ethically, and can it be considered spiritually valid in and of itself?

I'm inclined to say that while it pales in comparison to a broader love connection, it may indeed count as a net postive given the following:
- the experience is intimate, vulnerable, present, exploratory, and trustingly open to possibility, all spiritual thematic goods, if "only" physical.
- it overcomes atomization and apartness
- it finds a way to communicate, and do so joyously, bwteen people who otherwise might not connect
- it induces euphoria, peace, and passion, a sense of transcendent aliveness
- it is creative (a divine quality)
So setting aside dualism, denigration of "the flesh," and inherited guilt (and also bracketing the biblicist sovereignty argument as a stipulation), while acknowledging that this is not a complete sacred union, I'm hard pressed to dismiss it out of hand as morally wrong and spiritually empty.

[Darias]

All I can really say is that this isn't right for me.

And this is for several reasons.

First, I really do want to be a virgin until I marry -- if I marry. I find that to be special, and it's just something I want to do -- I mean it's not impossible, at least for me.

Second, I know what it feels like to truly love some one, and I also know how brief such a feeling can last, especially if the other person moves on...

For me, having a one night stand with someone I think I love, only to know that they didn't really love me enough to stay with me -- that would break my heart.

Most guys probably don't care -- and just wanna have sex with whoever whenever...

But I'm not like that... I'm more of a commitment person. First I couldn't imagine having sex with someone unless I really loved them. Loving someone is a turn-on, and having sex with a stranger or someone you don't really love -- let's just say, not so much. For me it's unthinkable. I would never be that vulnerable with someone unless I trusted and loved them.

In the very least such an action would hurt me in the long run because I would miss them and they probably wouldn't care.

At worst it would cause problems like pregnancy, godforbid -- abortion....

And if I didn't know the person, who knows what sort of diseases they would have...

If I did know the person and the news got out, it would be a reputation destroyer, if not in my community, than at least within my own family.

So at the end of the day I have no incentives for having casual premarital sex.

First because I have a deep sense that it is wrong for me (to quantify it morally would be not possible to do in an objective sense, but personally yes, quite wrong).

Second, because I don't feel like being vulnerable with my emotions and my self, only to be plagued with loneliness or regret for the rest of my life.

Third, because it might hurt the other person, get them pregnant, etc.

Fourth, because it would destroy my reputation in my family and in my community.


3 minutes for one night with a stranger isn't worth that -- or even the least bit appealing to me whatsoever.


But I can only speak for me.

[Wootah]

I'm inclined to say that while it pales in comparison to a broader love connection, it may indeed count as a net postive given the following:
- the experience is intimate, vulnerable, present, exploratory, and trustingly open to possibility, all spiritual thematic goods, if "only" physical.
- it overcomes atomization and apartness
- it finds a way to communicate, and do so joyously, bwteen people who otherwise might not connect
- it induces euphoria, peace, and passion, a sense of transcendent aliveness
- it is creative (a divine quality)
So setting aside dualism, denigration of "the flesh," and inherited guilt (and also bracketing the biblicist sovereignty argument as a stipulation), while acknowledging that this is not a complete sacred union, I'm hard pressed to dismiss it out of hand as morally wrong and spiritually empty.

Sex is good. The reason it is recommended to practise it within marriage is not to ruin your fun but to have its pleasure increased. Again using the analogy ... that is why many musicians join a band and stick together for a while.

[Slopeshoulder]

I'm inclined to say that while it pales in comparison to a broader love connection, it may indeed count as a net postive given the following:
- the experience is intimate, vulnerable, present, exploratory, and trustingly open to possibility, all spiritual thematic goods, if "only" physical.
- it overcomes atomization and apartness
- it finds a way to communicate, and do so joyously, bwteen people who otherwise might not connect
- it induces euphoria, peace, and passion, a sense of transcendent aliveness
- it is creative (a divine quality)
So setting aside dualism, denigration of "the flesh," and inherited guilt (and also bracketing the biblicist sovereignty argument as a stipulation), while acknowledging that this is not a complete sacred union, I'm hard pressed to dismiss it out of hand as morally wrong and spiritually empty.

Sex is good. The reason it is recommended to practise it within marriage is not to ruin your fun but to have its pleasure increased. Again using the analogy ... that is why many musicians join a band and stick together for a while.

In my experience, and in the testimony of those I admire, sex with love in marriage is indeed best.

But that says nothing about whether sex with neither love nor marrigae is somehow below a threshold of acceptiability or why. It is merely to impose an arbitrary rule based on a best case scenario which denies the benefits of sex to those not currently in love or married. Again, that strikes me as a (someone name the fallacy? no true scotsman?) fallacy. It seems like a tyranny of the elite based in fear.

[bjs]

I find that the conditions stipulated in the OP make this a difficult discussion. Generally speaking there are four ways we approach ethics (at least within most religions) – revelation, tradition, reason, and experience. The OP takes revelation and tradition out of the mix, and it is like trying to drive a car with only two wheels.

Since I am left with only reason and experience I find myself in a difficult spot. When I rely mainly on reason and my mind I’m not sure if I can ever find an ethical problem with sex between consenting adults who take proper precautions.

But when I rely on my experience and my heart I come to a different conclusion. (Usually on this site I try to rely on reason first, but in this case I hope I can be forgiven for breaking my own rule.) I may not be able to prove through reason alone that casual sex is different from casually playing music with someone, but I know that it is true.

My wife is a skilled musician. She plays four instruments and the flute is the one she is best at. If I were to learn that met someone and had an enjoyable evening playing the flute while he played the piano then I would be happy for her. I would want to hear about her evening and meet the person who accompanied her in making music.

If I learned she had a one night stand then my entire world would fall apart.

I don’t know if I can explain in words why sex is different from music (or dance or basketball or anything else), but it is. I know I’m not supposed to reference scripture for this thread, but the Bible sums up what I believe perfectly when it says that in the sexual act the two become one. That is not true of playing music together or anything else. Sex is different.

I know that this is not a fully reasoned argument so please grant me grace when I say that, no matter how I twist it around in my mind, treating sex so casually feels wrong. (Or, as they might once have said, it grieves the spirit within me.)

[Wootah]

In my experience, and in the testimony of those I admire, sex with love in marriage is indeed best.

But that says nothing about whether sex with neither love nor marrigae is somehow below a threshold of acceptiability or why. It is merely to impose an arbitrary rule based on a best case scenario which denies the benefits of sex to those not currently in love or married. Again, that strikes me as a (someone name the fallacy? no true scotsman?) fallacy. It seems like a tyranny of the elite based in fear.

Tyranny of reality perhaps and basing things in fear seems reasonable most of the time. Wear a condom ....

[Slopeshoulder]

Hi. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I find that the conditions stipulated in the OP make this a difficult discussion.

Yes, absolutely, by design.

Generally speaking there are four ways we approach ethics (at least within most religions) – revelation, tradition, reason, and experience.

Agreed, well said.
As I see it, theology deals with all 4, and philosophy with the last 2, and bad theology with the first 2. Would you agree?

The OP takes revelation and tradition out of the mix, and it is like trying to drive a car with only two wheels.

Wheelies are fun!

But seriously, I do this both because non-religionists or modern seeker types don't have revelation (biblical version) and tradition available, and also because my own theolgical background takes reason and experience seriously. Indeed if "Christan ethics are human ethics," as they were once described to me by a renowned and ordained ethicist, focused on human flourishing in relation to God, then sometimes it is worthwhile to test revelation (or our interpretation of it) and tradition (itself a living series of interpretations) in light of reason, experience and our heart or conscience as well (particularly if these are informed and enformed by a immersion in a relifious tradition and community). I guess that's what theologians and ethicists do of the tradition is to be a living tradition.
So I've set up an area of inquiry or discussion with these things in mind.

Since I am left with only reason and experience I find myself in a difficult spot. When I rely mainly on reason and my mind I’m not sure if I can ever find an ethical problem with sex between consenting adults who take proper precautions.

But when I rely on my experience and my heart I come to a different conclusion. (Usually on this site I try to rely on reason first, but in this case I hope I can be forgiven for breaking my own rule.) I may not be able to prove through reason alone that casual sex is different from casually playing music with someone, but I know that it is true.

Well I'll quiblle about the technical use of the word "know" and suggest that you feel or ajudge. And I agree. Pure reason, devoid of heart, conscience, and ethical sense, however inarticulate, is not enough. We need more and I agree with you.

My wife is a skilled musician. She plays four instruments and the flute is the one she is best at. If I were to learn that met someone and had an enjoyable evening playing the flute while he played the piano then I would be happy for her. I would want to hear about her evening and meet the person who accompanied her in making music.

If I learned she had a one night stand then my entire world would fall apart.

O yeah, I'm talking about single people! Open marriage, cheating etc. is a whole nother arena and topic. FWIW, my wife and I agree that we are so linked, even at the point of our identity, that anything outside it not only ethically unthinkable, but psychologically unthinkable. Just not on the radar.

I don’t know if I can explain in words why sex is different from music (or dance or basketball or anything else), but it is. I know I’m not supposed to reference scripture for this thread, but the Bible sums up what I believe perfectly when it says that in the sexual act the two become one. That is not true of playing music together or anything else. Sex is different.

Well, I agree, and live my life accordingly. But the question remains if all sex must be different. In other words, just because the greatest thing going is holistic intimacy between people who are in love and joined (you'll get no argument from me, and it's provable that most people aspire to this state), is this grounds to deny or denigrate sexual experience to people who are not in this state (and let's face it, even 50%+++ of married people aren't in this state). I know a Michilen starred restaurant is best, and McDonald's will kill you, but does this mean that everything in between those extremes is also off limits? Isn't there something genuine, if incomplete, in casual dining and casual sex? Should we be more inclusive and empathic?

I certainly respect if a person makes a choice to never separate emotional and phsyical intimacy, and recommends it as an aspirational state (I'm ALL for it!!), but is it right to enforce that on others who are not in that state, thrug the power of approbrium, especially given what reason and experience tell us (including sexual studies, psych, biology, behavioral and opinion surveys, philosophy, etc)? Do these folks not also experience a type of connection that has a spiritual dimension to their experience, as well as other positive aspects?

I know that this is not a fully reasoned argument so please grant me grace when I say that, no matter how I twist it around in my mind, treating sex so casually feels wrong. (Or, as they might once have said, it grieves the spirit within me.)

Well said. I think that your statement speaks admirably to the limits of reason and the power and value of heart, conscience, moral sense. And that's enough, when talkign about ourselves.
But what about people who don't feel this? Are they unethical, unfeeling, existentially twisted? Perhaps yes. But I have to say that I'm not convinced. I guess I look for the spirit in most places.

this really opens up a lot of issues (NOT that you have to adress them!!):
- are ethics universal or relative, and in what way and why
- is revelation closed or ongoing
- if a majority feels somethign is wrong, what is the source of that feeling and is is translatable to others?
- and more...


EDIT: stipulated...we're talking about single people, pre-marital and post-marital (divorced, widowed).