Is casual sex sinful?

[Del]

So did it work? Do you get to bang chicks guilt free now?

Sounds like it's mandatory behavior now, an obligation that must be fulfilled in hive-mind compliance to modern society. "Everyone belongs to everyone else."

Doesn't sound like much fun, though.

[FredS]

So did it work? Do you get to bang chicks guilt free now?

Sounds like it's mandatory behavior now, an obligation that must be fulfilled in hive-mind compliance to modern society. "Everyone belongs to everyone else."

Doesn't sound like much fun, though.

We live in completely different worlds, you and I. I can't find anyone who feels an obligation to offer up themselves for casual sex.

Maybe I need to wear a kilt when I go on the prowl.

[sweetandsour]

So did it work? Do you get to bang chicks guilt free now?

Sounds like it's mandatory behavior now, an obligation that must be fulfilled in hive-mind compliance to modern society. "Everyone belongs to everyone else."

Doesn't sound like much fun, though.

We live in completely different worlds, you and I. I can't find anyone who feels an obligation to offer up themselves for casual sex.

Maybe I need to wear a kilt when I go on the prowl.

I can immediately think of two guys, both now gone, may they rest in peace. They were co-workers on my first job out of college. I can't think of any women off hand, who feel, or felt, any obligation. Unless Troubadour is, in fact, a woman. He/she seems sort of obligated.

[Del]

So did it work? Do you get to bang chicks guilt free now?

Sounds like it's mandatory behavior now, an obligation that must be fulfilled in hive-mind compliance to modern society. "Everyone belongs to everyone else."

Doesn't sound like much fun, though.

We live in completely different worlds, you and I. I can't find anyone who feels an obligation to offer up themselves for casual sex.

Maybe I need to wear a kilt when I go on the prowl.

Young women pretty much have to offer themselves rather readily if they want to keep a boyfriend.

They don't complain a lot about this, because they have been conditioned from childhood to accept this low level of self-respect. And sex is addicting, especially if they started at a young age.

[FredS]

Sounds like it's mandatory behavior now, an obligation that must be fulfilled in hive-mind compliance to modern society. "Everyone belongs to everyone else."

Doesn't sound like much fun, though.

We live in completely different worlds, you and I. I can't find anyone who feels an obligation to offer up themselves for casual sex.

Maybe I need to wear a kilt when I go on the prowl.

Young women pretty much have to offer themselves rather readily if they want to keep a boyfriend.

They don't complain a lot about this, because they have been conditioned from childhood to accept this low level of self-respect. And sex is addicting, especially if they started at a young age.

I was joking about your Broad Brush™ Del. You wrote that offering oneself for casual sex was a "mandatory . . . obligation" now. The joke was that no young women feel that obligation towards me, and if you get those offers, it must be because of the kilt. Or perhaps it's your disarming personality.

But, since you went there, I think you're wrong. You (I presume) and I started having sex, or thinking about having sex in the 70's. I believe things were a lot freer then. The 'club scene' was wild and crazy. My daughters (ages 25ish to 32ish, married, with kids, brutally open with me and Mrs FredS) say young people aren't really into that these days. AIDS happened between our time and theirs and it changed things. Young people couldn't just bounce over to the clinic for a shot. They died. I wonder who's telling you such different stories than those I hear.

[EDIT] I'm not conflating premarital sex with casual sex. It is more common for young people to live together before marriage (all my girls did, against my wishes) and to have premarital sex (I presume they did that too) but it's hardly casual.

[Del]

We live in completely different worlds, you and I. I can't find anyone who feels an obligation to offer up themselves for casual sex.

Maybe I need to wear a kilt when I go on the prowl.

Young women pretty much have to offer themselves rather readily if they want to keep a boyfriend.

They don't complain a lot about this, because they have been conditioned from childhood to accept this low level of self-respect. And sex is addicting, especially if they started at a young age.

I was joking about your Broad Brush™ Del. You wrote that offering oneself for casual sex was a "mandatory . . . obligation" now. The joke was that no young women feel that obligation towards me, and if you get those offers, it must be because of the kilt. Or perhaps it's your disarming personality.

But, since you went there, I think you're wrong. You (I presume) and I started having sex, or thinking about having sex in the 70's. I believe things were a lot freer then. The 'club scene' was wild and crazy. My daughters (ages 25ish to 32ish, married, with kids, brutally open with me and Mrs FredS) say young people aren't really into that these days. AIDS happened between our time and theirs and it changed things. Young people couldn't just bounce over to the clinic for a shot. They died. I wonder who's telling you such different stories than those I hear.

[EDIT] I'm not conflating premarital sex with casual sex. It is more common for young people to live together before marriage (all my girls did, against my wishes) and to have premarital sex (I presume they did that too) but it's hardly casual.

I put on a couple of inches and my kilts didn't.... and I've become invisible to younger women. It was a good run, while it lasted.

Also back when Skip and I were wearing kilts, it was an eccentricity that was very high-testosterone. Since then.... people look at me like maybe I'm on testosterone suppressors. I won't be buying any more kilts. And I've grown a beard.
===============================

The arcs of sexual behavior have been a roller coaster over our lifetime, that's certain. I have heard that twenty-somes aren't as lascivious as we were at that age, and I believe it. They aren't all playing at hook-up culture.... mostly because a lot of them tried it, and discovered that it wasn't as much fun as it sounded.

I'm not a great expert on young people these days. All of my young friends are Catholic home-school kids.... and they are genuinely excited about the thrill of living lives that are both pure and rebelliously counter-cultural! I'm just thankful that I'm not treading that minefield now.

[Del]

We live in completely different worlds, you and I. I can't find anyone who feels an obligation to offer up themselves for casual sex.

Maybe I need to wear a kilt when I go on the prowl.

Young women pretty much have to offer themselves rather readily if they want to keep a boyfriend.

They don't complain a lot about this, because they have been conditioned from childhood to accept this low level of self-respect. And sex is addicting, especially if they started at a young age.

I suppose I could agree to that. I mean, if the intention from the get-go is just to "hook-up" and no one's even trying to hide it, that's one thing, but if a girl is saying she's looking for a "relationship" and then having sex on the first or second date, that's another thing entirely.

On that end though, one doesn't have to invoke anything nefarious - it's really just the fact that people tend to 'live in the moment' when there seem to be fewer immediate consequences for actions (even if there are potentially unseen, longer-term consequences). The whole "sexual revolution" that people go on about is really just the by-product of birth control having been invented and made readily available during that era - the end result is that people see less immediate consequences and just go with the flow.

On the foolishness of failing to see the consequences and "just go with the flow":

In 1968, Pope Paul VI wrote the most famous encyclical of the 20th century, Humanae vitae (On Human Life). July 25, 1968; 54 years ago today.
He reminded us that Christian faith has always condemned the use of contraception. He wanted to explain this again, in thoroughly modern terms.

He made four prophetic predictions for a society that embraces contraception:

1) An overall lowering of sexual moral behavior throughout the culture.
2) An increase in marital infidelity, divorce, STD's, and children conceived outside of marriage.
3) A loss of respect for women as persons. Women will come to be seen (and see themselves) more as objects.
4) Governments will feel empowered to encourage and impose population control through contraception, sterilization or abortion on their own people.

Of course all of these have painfully come to pass and more.

[On the "objectification of women," it's not just about strippers and porn. Let's note how readily we encourage young women to take hormonal pills in spite of the high risks of cancer, strokes, and blood clots. Common complications with IUD's include uterine perforations, hemorrhages, septic infections, and ectopic pregnancies. We would want a woman to do this to herself if we really cared about her.]

Humanae vitae was widely mocked when it was published. Basically, it got cancelled by the Sexual Revolution.
======================================================

Actually, these predictions have nothing specific to do with Catholic faith. This comes from the natural moral law ("The Law of Human Nature"), which is real and true in every culture and in every age -- whether or not the culture has ever heard of Jesus Christ. The unalienable rights and undeniable wrongs were set by our Creator, whether we know Him or not.

The world's major religions to understand how people work and to teach us how to live well. Most of the time, people are wise and live well.

But in the modern age, everyone has a better idea.... that's how we got Nazis and Communists, the French Revolution, a couple of world wars, and hundreds of millions of children killed worldwide by abortion. The gang violence and generational poverty in our cities, caused by a culture of fatherless homes.

We just haven't suffered enough yet to return to what we have known all along. It starts with you and me.
=====================================================

Anyhow.... it is disrespectful to women as full human persons whenever we engage in some casual sex. Don't be that guy. It's demeaning to her, and demeaning to yourself. Chivalry is a virtue for good reason.

[tuttle]

So did it work? Do you get to bang chicks guilt free now?

Not following that. I never said that "guilt" couldn't be a factor in some ways or another.

I agree that constantly "making and breaking bonds" with people rather than trying to deepen specific bonds is sort of a "consumerist, ADHD" mindset towards human relationships, which sometimes makes me feel a void when I think about it. Likewise, the anxiety about having children, particularly if you don't want children out of it will always be there to some extent, since you can minimize the risk factor but not eliminate it entirely.

I honestly just don't feel that it is necessarily "taking advantage" one or the other assuming that both parties treat each other well, since we're not talking about "kicking someone out the door" right after sex.

I honestly don't even think it's necessarily just about "dopamine" or "orgasm", as opposed to something experiential. That is all, I'm more than open to hearing your continued thoughts.

Also, is there an "opt-in forum" for more sensitive topics?

I bring up guilt, perhaps presumptively, because I assumed there was a reason for your original question: Is casual sex sinful? There are implications if it is or isn't. From all I can gather from this thread is that you are seeking to justify it.

Who are we sinning against when we sin? At times others and ourselves, but always against God. So even if both parties feel great about it there is still a Third to consider. But He is the Ancient of Days so maybe you don't think what He says can coincide with the 21st century?

[FredS]

Tuttle circles us back to the main point. IF you agree that sex was cooked up by the Creator as a means for reproduction while, at the same time, affording a man and a woman a supremely enjoyable and intimate act, you must certainly realize that sex apart from that very narrow path, is a sin. I wrote "at the same time" very intentionally. The RCC, and, evidently, the Tuttles, hold that to participate in the act, one must allow for procreation. Many others think it's fine to try to decouple the act from the chance of pregnancy as long as the couple is married and willing to bear a child if it comes to that. Both camps should believe that casual sex is far away from His intentions. The very fact that raising a child is one of the heaviest burdens any of us will ever bear, and that being a single parent makes that much more difficult, is proof enough of the original plan.

[Jester]

In the 21st century, would you say that casual sex is sinful? Please elaborate.

I don't find this question too strong but rather lacking in ambition. The true question of our age is, "In the 21st century, would you say that casually cutting your tally wacker off is sinful? Please elaborate."