TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

No Such Thing As Casual Sex?

BlackDragon
March 5, 2018

Last week, I had to beat up a little on my traditional conservative bothers. Today, I’m going to have to beat up a little on my left-wing friends. Good times.

Reader BB had this to say:

While I read pretty much everything you write, the one issue that seems central, and I believe you actually stated this somewhere, to your âsystemâ is that a man must get used to, indeed embrace, the idea of casual sex… that is, sex just for the sake of sex.

Emotionally I have a big issue w this.

Finally someone articulated my view somewhat in todayâs NY Times:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/opinion/human-touch-aziz-ansari.html

The basic idea is that there is no such thing as âcasualâ touch (let alone casual sex).  And that consent from a woman involves way more than her just saying yes… it requires the man to assess whether this particular interaction would be good for her, especially if she shows signs of reluctance or discomfort.

Iâm curious if you really totally reject this view.

Before I address his assertion, I should first address a few points and quotes from the article he linked to. First, it cites a study done back in the 1940âs, one Iâm already quite familiar with (since it was one of my mentors, Brian Tracy, who made me aware of it about 25 years ago). Babies in an orphanage were barely touched, and they actually stopped the experiment because so many of the babies actually died. Babies, and therefore humans, clearly need to be touched.

It then goes on to say that sexual abuse is very bad and fucks you up for life. Uh, duh.

It summarizes thusly:

Over the course of each year, people have many kinds of interactions and experience many kinds of mistreatment. But there is something unique about positive or negative touch. Emotional touch alters the heart and soul in ways that are mostly unconscious. It can take a lifetime of analysis to get even a glimpse of understanding.

For this reason, cultures all around the world have treated emotional touching as something apart. The Greeks labeled the drive to touch with the word âeros,â and they meant something vaster and deeper than just sexual pleasure. âAnimals have sex and human beings have eros, and no accurate science is possible without making this distinction,â Allan Bloom observed.

Touch is indeed very powerful. I agree completely. The science is very clear on this.

But then it keeps going, and starts going off the rails, discarding hard science for false Societal Programming.

The Abrahamic religions also treat sex as something sacred and beautiful when enveloped in loving and covenantal protections, and as something disordered and potentially peace-destroying when not.

Uh oh. Here we go.

Over the past 100 years or so, advanced thinkers across the West have worked to take the shame out of sex, surely a good thing. But theyâve also disenchanted it. As Elizabeth Bruenig wrote in The Washington Post this week, âOne of the principal outcomes of the sexual revolution was to establish that sex is just like any other social interaction â nothing taboo or sacred about it.â Sex is seen as a shallow physical and social thing, not a heart and soul altering thing.

Okay, then here’s the question: If sex is not a purely physical thing, then what, specifically, is it?

If your contention is that sex is something more than physical (or casually social, or whatever), then you need to define exactly what it is. The article never does this. Itâs the same with other people who make this point, that sex or physical touch is this âheart or soul altering thingâ and ânot just physical.â Theyâre not clear about their argument at all.

Iâve had this discussion many times with people like this. It always, and I mean always, goes something like this:

Person: Sex is NOT just a physical act! Itâs so much more than that!

Me: What is it then?

Person: Itâs a deeply spiritual act; itâs about connection and emotions and feelings and humanity (or whatever). Weâre too casual about it these days! Itâs not healthy!

Me: Do you want to go back to the right-wing Christian 1950âs and before then? Where sex was treated as an essentially religious act, and you werenât allowed to have any sex, with anyone, at any time, except with the person you legally married?

Person: OMG! No, no no! That was terrible! We canât go back to that! That was oppressive and inhuman and against women and blah blah blah!

Me: Okay, so… you donât want the 1950âs and you donât want today where adults can have sex whenever they choose and do so. What specifically do you want then? What’s your answer?

Person: Well, I donât know, I just donât like the fact thatâ¦

And then they go right back to saying how bad it is weâre having too much sex. Or something. In other words, they know what they emotionally don’t like, but they can’t tell you want they want, or a better system. Which, of course, is bullshit.

As Iâve said to people who attack nonmonogamous relationships, if you donât like my system, you need to tell me your system. If you canât articulate a specific alternate system that youâre for, then with all due respect, you need to fuck off. Pointing at something and saying âI donât like thisâ is not enough. You need to do what I have done, and instead say, âI donât like this for reasons X and Y. Instead, here is my detailed, step-by-step solution that is less bad.â

Thatâs the problem with people who have this view that sex is spiritual or emotional or whatever. They can tell you what they donât like, but they have no idea what they would like to see instead. This is because theyâre not thinking rationally, just emotionally.

The author of the article essentially wraps it up by stating that men need to read womenâs minds.

Two writers I greatly admire criticized the woman in the Ansari episode for not exercising more agency. If she was uncomfortable, she could have put on her clothes and hopped in a taxi.

But thatâs not how agency works. Itâs not a card you pull out of your pocket and lay on the table. Agency is learned, not bred. And one of the things that undermines agency most powerfully is past sexual harm.

The abuse of intimacy erodes all the building blocks of agency: self-worth, resiliency and self-efficacy (the belief that you can control a situation). It is precisely someone who lives within a culture of supposedly zipless encounters who is most likely to be unable to take action when she feels uncomfortable. Itâs the partnerâs responsibility to be sensitive to this possibility.

Iâm not going to comment on that since I already did so here. My point is to show the progression this person makes. He starts out with logic, facts, and science (good), then proceeds to false Societal Programming (bad), then ends up completely insane (very bad). This is the typical progression people follow when they discuss sex. Worse, this applies both to the SJW feminist left and the traditional conservatives. They usually start out great, defining actual, real-world problems using science and facts, but, the more they keep talking (or the more they are challenged by people like me), the more crazy and irrational they become.

Be aware of this. Itâs a very, very common pattern with sexual discourse in our society.

Now I will address BBâs original statements:

The basic idea is that there is no such thing as âcasualâ touch (let alone casual sex).

This is obviously false. Touch is important and powerful, but that doesnât mean 100% of all touching isnât casual. Thatâs black-and-white thinking.

When you meet a new man in a business environment for the first time, and you give him a good, strong handshake and look him in the eye, do you want to have sex with him? Do you want to make an emotional connection with him? Do you want him as a regular presence in your life?

Of course not. Just because youâre shaking his hand doesnât mean shit. Hell, you could even hate the guy. Yet, shaking hands is physical action and a powerful form of touch.

So yes, touch can indeed have zero meaning.

There are also degrees of meaning. If I see an uncle I havenât seen in 10 years and I hug him, that means one thing. When Pink Firefly comes home from work and I hug her, that means something completely different, so different, in fact, that itâs not even comparable. Let me say that again because itâs important: itâs not even comparable. The two events of hugging my uncle and hugging my OLTR wife are completely different in literally every way, even though they both involve an identical form of touching called a physical embrace.

Letâs move this to sex. If I have sex with Pink Firefly, then a week later I have sex with one of my long-term FBâs, then two weeks after that have sex with a brand new FB for the very first time, all three of these events involve sex, but the sex in these three events are so different to me emotionally, spiritually, and yes, sometimes even physically, that you canât even compare them.

Iâm serious. You canât. When I have sex with Pink Firefly, I often (not always, but often) experience it on a heightened, spiritual level. Itâs so important to me that itâs beyond wonderful, beyond emotional. There are biological, physical differences as well. I actually get hard faster and stronger with Pink Firefly than I do with my FB‘s. This started happening about a year and a half ago. It was very surprising.

When I have sex with one of my more distant FBâs, itâs often like going to the bathroom. Itâs purely physical, wham-bam, towel off, go back to work, and I literally donât give it another thought, ever. I hate to be crude, but thatâs my point⦠anyone saying âall sex is the sameâ or âthere is no such thing as casual sexâ is stating something that is literally and provably false.

Iâm not saying that casual sex has zero power. It can. I actually agree with the more right-wing manosphere guys who say that a woman who has had one night stands (or similar) with over 200 men (or whatever) may indeed manifest problems later in life because of it. Not always, and not with all women, but I agree that happens because Iâve seen it happen. Iâve also seen women (and some men) seek out sex as a refuge from major life problems, or as a sick form of validation, rather than as a thoroughly enjoyable physical experience. But none of this changes a word Iâm saying. Just because sex can be abused doesnât mean all sex is the same, or that there is no such thing as casual sex and meaningful, connected sex. Clearly there is, and Iâm one of the best men to describe the difference, since I regularly engage in both types. (And theyâre both wonderful; they just serve two different needs.)

And that consent from a woman involves way more than her just saying yes

I disagree completely and utterly. If she says yes, and sheâs not drunk, and sheâs a legal adult, and sheâs not mentally retarded, sheâs given consent. Otherwise, you are literally saying that she is a child, or retarded.

The argument of, âwell yeah, sheâs a functional adult and gave consent, but she was sexually abused eight years ago and hasnât overcome it yet, so itâs really not consent,â is just so much bullshit. Again, sheâs an adult, or sheâs not. Pick one, and stick with it.

Trying to organize social sexual behavior around âwomen are adults sometimes but not othersâ is never going to work.

…it requires the man to assess whether this particular interaction would be good for her, especially if she shows signs of reluctance or discomfort.

I agree, but as most women-experienced men know, just because a woman shows a little reluctance or discomfort does not mean she doesnât want to have sex with you. Proof: I have had sex with women who showed reluctance or discomfort the first time they had sex with me, and these women went on to have very happy, long-term sexual (and in some cases, romantic) relationships with me that lasted many years. One of the biggest examples was my last serious relationship before Pink Firefly, HBM. HBM was very scared at the prospect of having sex with me the first time, but we did it, and when it was over, she was very happy with me, and went on to have the longest consistent nonmonogamous relationship of my life to date: 5.5 years. As a matter of fact, the second time we had sex, she orgasmed for the first time in her life (and proceeded to orgasm with me hundreds of times after that).

How can anyone say that reluctance or discomfort on the part of a woman during first time sexual activity always means the man shouldnât attempt sex? Millions of women would disagree.

Yes, sometimes you shouldnât have sex if you encounter reluctance. Thatâs why, as I described in detail here, I use the rule of two or three. Try to sexually escalate, gently, two or three times. If after the third time, sheâs still refusing sex, great. Quickly, but politely wrap up the date, get the hell out of there, and go spend some time with a woman who wants to have sex with you. Itâs not that complicated. Iâve slept with scores of women and have had hundreds of dates, and Iâve literally never had a problem with any of this.

The concept of âall sex/touch is the sameâ and âthere is no such thing as casual touch/sexâ is an extreme form of black-and-white thinking, often embraced by both far right-wing men and far left-wing women (which says something about the right and the left).

The world is a little more nuanced than that.

 

If you find the content on this blog helpful, you should join the Alpha 2.0 Community where thereâs even more. We have over 470 members who help each other with their financial and woman lives and building an Alpha Male 2.0 lifestyle. I also have community-only podcasts there that aren’t available anywhere else. It’s free to join. Just click here.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog Caleb Jones.

Caleb Jones archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title No Such Thing As Casual Sex?
Author BlackDragon
Date March 5, 2018 1:00 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Blog Caleb Jones
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/blog/Caleb-Jones/no-such-thing-as-casual-sex.22936
https://theredarchive.com/blog/22936
Original Link https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/03/05/no-thing-casual-sex/
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter