What's your view on casual NSA sex. Are you for it or against it?

1. 58

   Franklin Loweposted 13 years ago

   Casual sex I something that I feel is fine as long as both parties understand the position that there are no feelings involved.
   At times though it becomes complicated because one person feels that it was a moment of vulnerability and they allowed someone in. So they should stay. But the other person feels that it was agreed it is just sex. 
   Friends cannot have casual sex. Because they are friends and then true feelings that were held in will come to the surface. That is called friends with benefits. Major difference.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Dave Mathewsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What's wrong with both parties abstaining until they marry their partner? This is what God intended.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      janikonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I, honestly, do not see the harm in NSA sex but it can only work if both parties understand the arrangement.

      replyreport
2. 69

   mtalbot2987posted 13 years ago

   I think you've summed it up pretty well. As long as both parties know what they're doing then it's fine. I think if it starts to become complicated then something needs to change. It ceases to be 'no strings attached' once strings (emotions) start to become attached. Openness seems to be the key thing in a relationship like this.

   replyreport
3. 89

   wildernessposted 13 years ago

   Sounds like both parties would be better off to find a local prostitute.  Probably cheaper in the long run and easier on the emotions to boot.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well said Wilderness.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      WrittenWoman91posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unless said prostitute has an STI/STD... in which case, you are just royally screwed in the least pleasant of ways should you partake in that particular form of casual sex.
      
      Potentially deadly contracted virus vs. emotional breakdown and spiritual scarring... I'm not sure which sounds more fun.
      
      Though, if both parties consented and didn't have the issue of someone needing more than just casual sex, I guess that issue doesn't come to the surface anyways... unfortunately, that's a "you won't know until you try" situation. XD
      
      Entertaining commentary, though. I think your statement was the cream of the crop so far.

      replyreport
4. 60

   thighhighchickposted 13 years ago

   Aren't friends with benefits just booty calls? Although I have slept with friends before and we are still friends.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      nightwork4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i agree. i never understood why people say friends can't have sex. i have slept with friends and there was never an issue. plus, at least friends kniow what your into and whether they are your type.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Gregoryyposted 13 years ago

   There is no point of casual sex. When animals have sex they do it for the purpose of creating offspring. Humans do not alwyas do that, and thats why we had to create artifical controceptives. By being abstident you dont have to worry about std's or pregnancy. Also for guys the longer you abstain from ejaculation the more sexual energy you get. Which means that when you do get into a commited relationship or married, you will be more sexual with your partner.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      nightwork4posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      B.S. what you stated is nothing but a lie. ask anyone who married a person when they were virgins, ended up separating and had casual sex if the person they married satified them and i'll bet 9 out of 10 times they say that marrying a virgin was a bad idea. as for sustaining from ejaculation, after about 6 days there is no difference then if you had sex the day before as far as energy or power of the ejaculation is concerned.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      WrittenWoman91posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, your statement regarding non-human sexual activity isn't completely true. A lot of animal cultures utilize sexual interaction as a way to determine rank, enforce pack law, and often to release pressure/tension. Sexual intercourse is used for simple pleasure in the wild as well as within the human race and has been documented. Procreation might be the main driving force during mating season, but animals will still continue mating rituals past their fertile points. In wolf packs and other types of group cultures, the alphas will often partake in the betas or lesser members of the pack simply as a way of reinforcing their position.
      
      As for the second part of your comment, re sexual energy. That isn't necessarily true. Humans reach the peak of their sexual cycles around their mid-teens and it lasts through their late twenties. It has nothing to do with abstinence, but with age and the genetic cycle of the species. Also, with a male, the longer you wait the more likely it is you won't last long with your partner and you're more likely to produce copious amounts of seminal fluid. Thus increasing the chances of impregnating your partner, whether or not that's the desired outcome. Also, the less experience a male has, the more likely he is to tire out quicker. The only things that help with "sexual energy" are building a tolerance and having the right concentration of vitamins and minerals in your body. Zinc, especially.
      
      Of course, neither of my above statements are absolute. There are always exceptions.
      
      I'm not saying that abstinence is a bad thing, but your comment is false on most fronts. And abstinence has nothing to do with this question. You can abstain until you're in your fifties and still end up having casual sex. Plenty of married couples still engage in casual sex on occasion to liven things up.
      
      As for how sexual you are with your partner, it depends on your chemical connection as much as anything else. Physical health, energy stores, experience, emotional and chemical reactions, mood, etc. And being MORE sexual with your partner isn't necessarily a good thing. If you refrain for longer than you're ready to, you have an increased risk of joining a relationship simply FOR the sexual encounters.
      
      Casual sex is a healthy way to relieve stress and build up the chemicals in your body needed for happiness, pain killer, and long-term health in both the mental and physical sense. It's simply a matter of making sure you're both on the same page and that you're with someone who won't put you at risk for anything harmful, and vice-versa. If you've contracted a communicable disease, then you shouldn't be participating in intercourse without full disclosure in the first place.
      
      Sexual health is just as important as any other bodily health... each form of health can boost or lessen the others. With casual sex, you just have to know what you're in for and make sure your partner understands the same.
      
      Also, as a side note, chemical contraceptives were originally created to ease hormonal side-effects such as cramps, mood swings, migraines, etc. Helping to prevent pregnancy was just a beneficial side-effect. And contraceptives have been around since "before the common era". First made out of grasses, dirts, and crocodile dung to form an acidic patty the woman would use as a diaphragm. So, obviously primitive species were just as interested in casual sex as we are now, though most would say sex for primitive man was procreative only. Procreation, power, and pleasure... those have always been and always will be the driving forces. But pleasure seems to take place of the others more and more often.
      
      Not attempting to start an argument, just interjecting due to fallible information.
      
      Abstinence is excellent until you're emotionally mature enough to handle the consequences of your actions, but it isn't for everyone. And there's nothing wrong with sexual activity, so long as you're truly mature enough for it. The problem is getting people to wait until they're ready instead of diving head-in... but again, that's not what the post was about.
      
      Personally, I prefer my one-and-only, steady-going relationship sexual interactions, but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit in casual sex for others.
      
      I think if you were to re-word your comment as an opinionated statement rather than listing things off as if they're facts, it would be more viable here, and a lot easier to respect. But if you want to list off fact, please make sure it's fact beforehand. Every body is different (generally speaking), what works for yours doesn't necessarily work for someone else's.

      replyreport
6. 72

   Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago

   I think that NSA agents have the same rights as anyone else, and as long as they don't let their sex lives get in the way of national security, what they do is their business.
   
   Oh, wait, you meant No Strings Attached, didn't you? My bad.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Doc Snowposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for that.  I came by this thread just to learn what "NSA" meant in this context.
      
      (Yeah, you might say I'm past the first blush of youth.)

      replyreport
7. 62

   mickaa2001posted 13 years ago

   im against it. it starts out great over time it never works. its impossible to not develop feelings...stick to toys if your not in a relationship

   replyreport
8. 60

   Mamadramaposted 13 years ago

   I'm for it. I think NSA sex is better then stringing someone alone that you are compatable with in the bedroom but no where else. If you both know is NSA then go for it!

   replyreport