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?

[sarabellum]

My personality lends itself to monogamy.....
This is what I prefer and has meaning to me...
It seems safer...

That being said, I see no absolute reason why a casual sexual encounter couldn't be spiritual for one/both/group...
In fact I have heard it claimed to have happened by others...

I have often suspected that monogamy might come down to wiring...
You either get it or you don't...

[dianaiad]

Besides; really good sex requires practice...with a patient and willing partner, preferably with a great sense of humor, timing and.....

Wait. a little hard to DO that with a one night stand.

Where does it say that the casual sex is a one night stand?

OP, second sentence; exact words were "even one-night stands." True, I fixated on that a bit, but my answer still applies to the rest of the sentence. "Casual," in terms of sexual relationships, implies a lack of any deep emotional involvement...which definitely leaves out the "patient" part of the 'willing partner, if nothing else.

[Slopeshoulder]

Long OP...short answer (sorry)

Well, I prefer not to finish too soon.
Let's continue...um...next position...

...........but a couple of flutists playing blissful jazz together don't run the risk of getting a bunch of piccolos running around the band room,

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

nor do they risk transferring rusty keys one to the other.

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

As well, when they end the song and leave the room, they may have wonderful memories...but not broken hearts and lives.

But these artists cherish the memory and have neither broken hearts nor broken lives. They made sparks, it's what artists do.

Besides; really good sex requires practice...with a patient and willing partner, preferably with a great sense of humor, timing and.....Wait. a little hard to DO that with a one night stand.

Yeah, but great improvising virtuoso's have no such limitations. They have these qualities by definition.

Full disclosure: like many people who don't forswear sex, especially in my generation, and before I was married, I had several casual encounters or sex-driven relationships. Not nearly as many as some (I was usually in a serious relationship or seeking real love, and I married young), but enough. None involved dishonesty, broken promises or substance abuse, and I initiated only 10% of the time (I guess I used to be attractive or something). Most were well and good, but a few were astounding, and reminded of peak experiences improvising music with others, and I have never once regretted it for a moment. So the analogy in the OP occured to me. And while I'd never exchange what I have in love and marriage with my incredible wife for that, and I acknowledge all kinds of negative outcomes for people of lesser maturity and discernment (as catalogued by jerry springer, et. al), honesty compels me to look at what I experienced as a net good, even a spiritual good in a way, as a connection.

So I think you are taking preconceptions and imposing them on a situation.

But it's all good because this is sort of a goofy thread anyway.

[dianaiad]

Long OP...short answer (sorry)

Well, I prefer not to finish too soon.
Let's continue...um...next position...

Please.

Do try to remember that I'm a missionary...

...........but a couple of flutists playing blissful jazz together don't run the risk of getting a bunch of piccolos running around the band room,

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

nor do they risk transferring rusty keys one to the other.

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

no risk? Ever try to get that one past a car insurance agent? The only way to have a risk free driving experience is...to stay out of the car.

As well, when they end the song and leave the room, they may have wonderful memories...but not broken hearts and lives.

But these artists cherish the memory and have neither broken hearts nor broken lives. They made sparks, it's what artists do.

Besides; sex is so intimate, so special a thing, that in my personal opinion anybody leaving one with ONLY 'the memory of sparks' is missing the whole POINT.

Besides; really good sex requires practice...with a patient and willing partner, preferably with a great sense of humor, timing and.....Wait. a little hard to DO that with a one night stand.

Yeah, but great improvising virtuoso's have no such limitations. They have these qualities by definition.

Full disclosure: like many people who don't forswear sex, especially in my generation, and before I was married, I had several casual encounters or sex-driven relationships. Not nearly as many as some (I was usually in a serious relationship or seeking real love, and I married young), but enough. None involved dishonesty, broken promises or substance abuse, and I initiated only 10% of the time (I guess I used to be attractive or something). Most were well and good, but a few were astounding, and reminded of peak experiences improvising music with others, and I have never once regretted it for a moment. So the analogy in the OP occured to me. And while I'd never exchange what I have in love and marriage with my incredible wife for that, and I acknowledge all kinds of negative outcomes for people of lesser maturity and discernment (as catalogued by jerry springer, et. al), honesty compels me to look at what I experienced as a net good, even a spiritual good in a way, as a connection.

So I think you are taking preconceptions and imposing them on a situation.

But it's all good because this is sort of a goofy thread anyway.[/quote]

Yes...and I will admit that I am a rarity. I"ve only had sex with one person, and I married him first.

It's just that...perhaps because of that, I can't imagine having casual sex with someone and coming away from it feeling...improved in any way.

YOu are quite right, though. This is goofy thread.

[Slopeshoulder]

Long OP...short answer (sorry)

Well, I prefer not to finish too soon.
Let's continue...um...next position...

Please.

Do try to remember that I'm a missionary...[/quote]
I assume missionaries have a sense of humor (my missionary friend does), so I'm hoping you see the pun...

...........but a couple of flutists playing blissful jazz together don't run the risk of getting a bunch of piccolos running around the band room,

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

nor do they risk transferring rusty keys one to the other.

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

no risk? Ever try to get that one past a car insurance agent? The only way to have a risk free driving experience is...to stay out of the car.

You misunderstand, me. I mean to say there is no life without risk, and in this area, thanks to technology, risk is lowered to the level that we accept day to day in ther areas.

As well, when they end the song and leave the room, they may have wonderful memories...but not broken hearts and lives.

But these artists cherish the memory and have neither broken hearts nor broken lives. They made sparks, it's what artists do.

Besides; sex is so intimate, so special a thing, that in my personal opinion anybody leaving one with ONLY 'the memory of sparks' is missing the whole POINT.

It can be, for some people, the lucky ones, or some years of their life. I agree that's the best. But do we have the right to demonize everyone else? Isn't my question that the POINT is always there in a way?

Besides; really good sex requires practice...with a patient and willing partner, preferably with a great sense of humor, timing and.....Wait. a little hard to DO that with a one night stand.

Yeah, but great improvising virtuoso's have no such limitations. They have these qualities by definition.

Full disclosure: like many people who don't forswear sex, especially in my generation, and before I was married, I had several casual encounters or sex-driven relationships. Not nearly as many as some (I was usually in a serious relationship or seeking real love, and I married young), but enough. None involved dishonesty, broken promises or substance abuse, and I initiated only 10% of the time (I guess I used to be attractive or something). Most were well and good, but a few were astounding, and reminded of peak experiences improvising music with others, and I have never once regretted it for a moment. So the analogy in the OP occured to me. And while I'd never exchange what I have in love and marriage with my incredible wife for that, and I acknowledge all kinds of negative outcomes for people of lesser maturity and discernment (as catalogued by jerry springer, et. al), honesty compels me to look at what I experienced as a net good, even a spiritual good in a way, as a connection.

So I think you are taking preconceptions and imposing them on a situation.

But it's all good because this is sort of a goofy thread anyway.

Yes...and I will admit that I am a rarity. I"ve only had sex with one person, and I married him first.

It's just that...perhaps because of that, I can't imagine having casual sex with someone and coming away from it feeling...improved in any way.

Well there ain't nothing wrong with that and I certainly won't argue with it. I agree.
I can't imagine ever even entertaining the thought at this point.

[Slopeshoulder]

Long OP...short answer (sorry)

Well, I prefer not to finish too soon.
Let's continue...um...next position...

Please.

Do try to remember that I'm a missionary...

I assume missionaries have a sense of humor (my missionary friend does), so I'm hoping you see the pun...

...........but a couple of flutists playing blissful jazz together don't run the risk of getting a bunch of piccolos running around the band room,

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

nor do they risk transferring rusty keys one to the other.

And with modern technology the chances are lower than getting injured in an auto accident. No risk, no life.

no risk? Ever try to get that one past a car insurance agent? The only way to have a risk free driving experience is...to stay out of the car.

You misunderstand me. I mean to say there is no life without risk, and in this area, thanks to technology, risk is lowered to the level that we accept day to day in ther areas.

As well, when they end the song and leave the room, they may have wonderful memories...but not broken hearts and lives.

But these artists cherish the memory and have neither broken hearts nor broken lives. They made sparks, it's what artists do.

Besides; sex is so intimate, so special a thing, that in my personal opinion anybody leaving one with ONLY 'the memory of sparks' is missing the whole POINT.

It can be, for some people, the lucky ones, or some years of their life. I agree that's the best. But do we have the right to demonize everyone else? Isn't my question that the POINT is always there in a way?

Besides; really good sex requires practice...with a patient and willing partner, preferably with a great sense of humor, timing and.....Wait. a little hard to DO that with a one night stand.

Yeah, but great improvising virtuoso's have no such limitations. They have these qualities by definition.

Full disclosure: like many people who don't forswear sex, especially in my generation, and before I was married, I had several casual encounters or sex-driven relationships. Not nearly as many as some (I was usually in a serious relationship or seeking real love, and I married young), but enough. None involved dishonesty, broken promises or substance abuse, and I initiated only 10% of the time (I guess I used to be attractive or something). Most were well and good, but a few were astounding, and reminded of peak experiences improvising music with others, and I have never once regretted it for a moment. So the analogy in the OP occured to me. And while I'd never exchange what I have in love and marriage with my incredible wife for that, and I acknowledge all kinds of negative outcomes for people of lesser maturity and discernment (as catalogued by jerry springer, et. al), honesty compels me to look at what I experienced as a net good, even a spiritual good in a way, as a connection.

So I think you are taking preconceptions and imposing them on a situation.

But it's all good because this is sort of a goofy thread anyway.

Yes...and I will admit that I am a rarity. I"ve only had sex with one person, and I married him first.

It's just that...perhaps because of that, I can't imagine having casual sex with someone and coming away from it feeling...improved in any way.

Well there ain't nothing wrong with that and I certainly won't argue with it. I agree.
I can't imagine ever even entertaining the thought at this point.[/quote]

[Strider324]

As far as I know there is no reason to posit that sexual expression is only justified if bound to a long term monogamous relationship. Sex can be - and is - enjoyed for its own sake across the planet and can involve simple physical release and the accompanying sense of satisfaction and well-being, to intimacy, to a powerful expression of humanity that acknowledges the symbiosis of humans giving and receiving without artificially induced shame or guilt.

It can also be shallow, totally hedonistic, or boring as all get out (see marriage).


Casual sex can refer to 2 (or more) people meeting at a bar and agreeing to 'meaningless sex' (as they no doubt will define it to their significant others if caught).

It can also mean an active decision to embrace each others carnal nature without adding any other arbitrary or culturally approved criterion (living together, marriage, social and/or financial commitment, paying for dinner.....).

For me, if I can achieve intimacy as part of the interaction, a humanistic connection usual attends that makes the experience anything but 'meaningless'.

Afterwards, if she wants to pay me, I'm cool wit dat.....


"If you are unwilling to undress, do not enter into the stream of Truth"
- Rumi

[Yahu]

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)

What say you?

IMHO God's requirements on sexual behavior are misunderstood by modern standards of Christianity.

For example, the current modern understanding of fornication is generally defined as any sexual activity outside of marriage. This is an incorrect definition. The term actually means 'unlawful intercourse'. In order to know what is unlawful, you have to go back to the law on what was specifically forbidden by the law.

The law condemns different sexual behavior. Rape and incest with close family members are specifically forbidden by the law of Moses. (Granted the incest clause was not forbidden up to that point due to the availability of wives after the flood. It was common to marry a fairly near family member. For example Sarah was Abraham's niece, the daughter of his eldest brother. Isaac and Jacob also married near relatives.) It was a lesser offense to take a girl's virginity without her father's blessing. The law just required that the girl become a wife and a fine paid to the father for not having that blessing. It was NOT an offense to have sexual contact with your betrothed or a non-virgin. The betrothal was the beginning of the covenant. The marriage feast could be a much later event.

So what is forbidden is rape, incest and taking a girl's virginity without marrying her. Of course the other forbidden act is taking another man's wife.

What God's law shows is that you are to be responsible in your sexual behavior not harming anyone. A concubine was a woman with which you had a sexual relationship with that was not considered a full wife. If the concubine had your child, you were responsible for that child.

Proverbs condemns visiting a prostitute as well though it is not formally forbidden by the law. Judah visited what he thought was a prostitute but was in fact his widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar.

Now what needs to be understood is that the ancient paganism was full of casual sexual worship done in dedication to the pagan gods/goddesses. This practice is HIGHLY condemned throughout the bible. The Groves were a place of worship to the pagan deities. There was partying, drinking, dancing and public sex acts with the ritual prostitutes and even public sex acts with the Asherah Poles.

The incident at Baal-peor was punished by God. The problem was the sex was done in worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, the god and goddess of fertility and sexual desire. It was the sex that lured in the Isrealites to violate Yah's command to have no other god before Him. It wasn't the sex that was forbidden but the pagan worship.

That is a very old trick of the enemy to draw people away from God via sexuality. The groves were a place of casual sex that resulted in unwanted pregnancies. The unwanted babies were then offered as sacrifices to Molech in the valley below also bringing down a curse for shedding innocent blood.

One other thing that needs to be understood is that intercourse also creates a link spiritually, becoming one. This is commonly known as a soul-tie. It is spiritually dangerous linking yourself to an individual with many sexual partners.

So in answer to the question 'The spirituality of casual sex?' Yes it is a spiritual experience but women that act whorishly with many partners are following the ways of Ashtoreth and you are inviting the demonic spirits associated with the groves and the pit of hell by joining with them. On the other hand, taking a concubine is not forbidden as long as you are responsible but a concubine is not a one-night-stand but someone you are in a sexual relationship with that is a non-virgin, but you had to be responsible for your actions.

It is spiritually best to limit yourself to a single partner for life but due to circumstances that is not always easy.

[eutychus]

As an engineer, God hit this one out of the park. Creating a physical act that literally, through the chemical reactions in our brains, renews marital affection, that costs nothing, that offers tremendous physical pleasure in a world filled with frequent pain, that becomes a shared and exclusive experience that protects the stability of the entire family—just from a creative aspect, how can we not be in awe of this amazing invention of God that our culture describes by that little three-letter-word, 'sex'?

The past decade has led to an explosion of understanding about the chemical interactions of our brains, and many insights about love and marriage have become more readily apparent. For starters, that wonderfully transcendent, carry-me-away feeling of infatuation will last 24 to 33 months. This sudden affection is intense, but it’s a “sprinter,� not a marathoner. It has no endurance, and will begin to fade about the time that most couples come home from their honeymoon.

As the inventor of our brains, God knows this, so He also designed a follow-up act that literally renews a couple’s affection: sexual intimacy. Here’s how it works. At any given time, the female brain contains up to ten times more oxytocin than the male brain. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical that creates feelings of affection and empathy. Nursing an infant causes a surge of oxytocin for the mother, deepening the bond with her child. You want to know why women tend to be more invested in close relationships than men? Oxytocin.

There’s only one time in human experience when the husband’s level of oxytocin begins to approach that of his wife’s: immediately following an act of sexual intimacy. A man’s brain literally re-bonds with his spouse, making him, at that moment, more committed to his family, more satisfied with his wife, more invested in his home. Wives, why do your husbands want sex with you so often (whether they know this is the reason or not or you care to believe it)? It’s because we never feel closer to our woman than immediately following that encounter.

Though sex can be extremely pleasurable, that’s not God’s end purpose. Though sex can reduce tension, that’s not God’s primary design for it. Though it can satisfy, at least temporarily, hormonal urges, that’s not why God created it. First and foremost (beyond reproduction, of course), God created a physical act to preserve the marriage and renew the bonds of affection between husband and wife.

Without wanting to remove the mystery, sex is a very effective tool to keep the marital connection strong. There is a one-to-one connection between the frequency of sexual intercourse within a marriage and the overall satisfaction with that marriage. This doesn’t surprise me, as it reflects what is literally happening to a couple’s brains when they engage in the physical expression of their love. This is also why I believe any premarital sexual experience can be unhelpful in the long run. Because a neurochemical bonding occurs in the brain of each participant in the physical act of love-making, I fear for what this does to a person's psyche when the encounter is but one of an ongoing string of such encounters. What does this say to each of the people involved? This person cares for me to some degree but not enough to form a permanent bond. This must involve some sense of betrayal when you trust another with this personal a portion of yourself only to have it thrown back at you. So God knew what he was talking about when he prescribed sexual experience only for marriage.

Counselors who specialize in sexual issues suggest that it takes a couple about 20 years to truly connect, sexually, as a couple. My wife and I will be celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary next month and I’m inclined to agree with them. I believe a couple can build such a satisfying sexual relationship, getting to know each other so well, growing in intimacy on all levels—that the thought of an affair holds little appeal. We have a lifetime of knowledge about how to please each other, we have common memories, we have a shared faith in God, and when the sexual act renews our bond—when there is no guilt but great joy—the entire experience approaches that of worship. Satisfying sex isn’t just about you and your spouse. It’s not just about affair-proofing your marriage. It’s about pleasing the ultimate engineer, the God who thought it all up in the first place. And for a believer, there is no greater joy than that.

Unfortunately I have to approach this subject from my Christian worldview, and I know a lot of folks here are not comfortable with that, but in this postmodern world my experience is, by any definition of postmodern, just as valid as anyone elses, so for better or worse, here is my answer to the casual sex question: Casual sex is simply intimacy for those who are unwilling to put any effort into the process of actually building intimacy.

[RobertUrbanek]

Casual sex? I try to be casual but I usually feel a little nervous.

I suspect the obsession to "work" at sex and relationships until you get them perfect is part of our American consumerism obsession: You can't be satisfied if you know someone else has a better product.