Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

-

[martinuzz]

*shrug* It's kind of a given that not having sex prevents 100% of STDs.

Not entirely true. Everyone who orders a drink at a pub has a risk of contracting herpes and some other stuff that isn't killed by washing glasses with cold water and some glass washing soap.

[wierd]

It is totally "The" definition Drags.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/casual+sex

https://books.google.com/books?id=CfGB7vakNisC&pg=PA502&lpg=PA502&dq=casual+sex+webster%27s+dictionary&source=bl&ots=a83_BkrnhH&sig=ACfU3U337YTXz_DdMO5EAmQ-xicdtmPhmg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHgOSph6zqAhUUbc0KHbjCBsAQ6AEwD3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=casual%20sex%20webster's%20dictionary&f=false

or if you prefer oxford:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/casual_sex


Sorry, but meh.  I find the practice very distasteful, and very harmful to human health.

[martinuzz]

According to that oxford definition, having a two night stand (or doing it twice in the one night stand) is not casual sex, because the second time you are having sex with an established sexual partner.

Also, according to that definition, having sex for the first time on your wedding night is also casual sex.

[Bumber]

1. Quite possibly.
2. How is that relevant?
3. Did I not specifically say that lethal force is not a proper response to infringement of property rights?!

1. The mortality rate is 0.0169% for giving live birth (i.e., not c-section.) Not likely in most cases, and generally you'll know if you're in the high-risk group.
2. For self-defense to apply, the individual must be taking hostile action against you. Killing someone to indirectly save yourself isn't self-defense, it's a Trolley Problem.
3. It was a metaphor for the fetus "leeching off" the mother. The fetus didn't break into a womb with intent to kill. It was put there through the act of sex, and is only leeching nutrients to survive.

It's not really comparable to self-defense at all. Even less so in the majority of cases where the mother is not actually at risk.

[wierd]

According to that oxford definition, having a two night stand (or doing it twice in the one night stand) is not casual sex, because the second time you are having sex with an established sexual partner.

Also, according to that definition, having sex for the first time on your wedding night is also casual sex.

Not my fault that Oxford dropped the ball and gave a shit definition that is not in line with established use everywhere else.   Some people just insist on Oxford over Webster, because reasons that escape me.

Note that the first one given comes from a medical dictionary, and webster's makes it synonymous with one-night-stand sexual encounter.

[Eschar]

1. Quite possibly.
2. How is that relevant?
3. Did I not specifically say that lethal force is not a proper response to infringement of property rights?!

1. The mortality rate is 0.0169% for giving live birth (i.e., not c-section.) Not likely in most cases, and generally you'll know if you're in the high-risk group.
2. For self-defense to apply, the individual must be taking hostile action against you. Killing someone to indirectly save yourself isn't self-defense, it's a Trolley Problem.
3. It was a metaphor for the fetus "leeching off" the mother. The fetus didn't break into a womb with intent to kill. It was put there through the act of sex, and is only leeching nutrients to survive.

It's not really comparable to self-defense at all. Even less so in the majority of cases where the mother is not actually at risk.

I was under the impression that self defense was used in situations when harmful physical action (such as leeching off one's body, not one's pantry) or other violation (significant effects on one's body) was being carried out, regardless of the mental state or intent of the "attacker" or mere violator. Regardless, the fact that we recognize the existence of self-defense shows that we already have a moral framework in place for situations where someone takes lethal action against an infringer: the decision to do so is up to the person who's body is being infringed upon - assuming it's a significant and personal violation (not your pantry), and if an external infringement can count as such then living in someone's body most certainly does. Even though the fetus is, yes, only doing so to survive. The intent of the infringing party does not matter, unless we were trying to charge the fetus with a crime in a court of law, which we aren't.

Even if someone would die without your blood, you still have the right to refuse to donate it for any reason whatsoever–even for no reason whatsoever. You don’t even need to tell the person asking for your blood why, or to argue about it. Just not wanting to do it is reason enough.

The same reasoning applies to leeching of nutrients and  undesired inhabitation.

Question: Are there non-lethal ways to end a pregnancy? Do we have technology to safely extract a fetus, or a conceptus? We can store a fertilized conceptual, right, that's required for IVF?

[dragdeler]

-

[wierd]

I hope you don't take offense at my now picturing you with gray hair tied up in a severe bun and reading glasses sliding down on your nose as you look on with distaste at "these young folk mushing their bits together all willy-nilly and such" after your recent posts, wierd.

I can't help it, far too much exposure to british comedies in my youth to avoid at this point.

LOLOL

I see where you are coming from, but really-- I (try to) keep my opinion about sex to myself, as long as people keep the details of their sex to themselves.  I consider that a fair arrangment. Sadly, these days far too many build their ENTIRE DEFINITION OF THEIR BEING around what kind of sex they do, and so, they just gush that all over. They tend to be rather promiscuous in my experience, and I find it disturbing and gross.  Homo, Hetero, Bi, Pan, whatever--- I am not interested in what kind of sex you do, or how often you do it.  If you are doing it with multiple people, you are putting yourself and others at risk, and really-- you should find something more intrinsic to your personality core trait set to base your identity on, not what kind of nookie you like. (That's like basing your identity around an icecream flavor.)

[wierd]

I don't actually doubt you stuck to the hard book definition I just notice that that reading doesn't seem widespread at all and that you'd be more efficiently communicating what you want to say with ONS.

Alltogether I prefer to stand with the dictionnary also, but sheer abundance of reactions tells me I'm not the only one to read it a different way, so all I can do at this point is to tell you what I hear by casual.

Casual is an ambigous word, there is the meaning of "not regularly", then without particular dedication, but also "unforced". By casual I hear doing something, sometimes, just for the heck of it; as opposed to: regularly, forced, dedicatedly, or professionally.

edit: You might even add "purposefully" if you stretch the antonyms a bit.

I would put "casual" as you interpreted it more like this:

"Not conforming to convention or tradition, or not undertaken with considerable planning, premeditation, or dedication."

EG, "Casual gamer" is not somebody who is fixated on 100% completion on hard mode, and unlocking every goddamn achievement-- they just want some care-free entertainment.

or, "Casual Dress"; Not conforming to expected office/corporate/formal dress code.


In that capacity, the evolution of the term makes sense:  Blunt referral to it as "Extramarital sex", "One night stand", or worse yet, "Fornication" (Gawd, I can't beleive I wrote that word. blech.) was eschewed (for being offensive), and it was given a euphemism of "Casual sex"-- sex outside of "Normal convention" (ahem, like marriage.) 

Personally, I don't give a flying helicopter dick about marriage.  I care more about the mental health of the couple, not what makes baby jesus cry, which is why my concerns are more about introducing communicable diseases to your significant other, or with contributing to relationship problems because of mental repatterning from a long period of such sexual exploit that would need to be consciously overcome in order to be addressed. (and since it is not widely known about, does not routinely happen when people who WERE into one-night-stands suddenly find that they really really like a specific someone, but then have a hard time with the pair bonding.)

[martinuzz]

Sorry to say this, but this mental repatterning thing sounds to me like total and utter bullocks.

[wierd]

Except it's not.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012750/

There are lots of studies like this one, because of how unusual monogomy is in nature.

[martinuzz]

But humans are not a monogamous species. In monogamous animals, there is no such thing as cheating.
And you imply that muslims and other polygamous societies are made of non-humans.

Also, humans are not naked mole rats, erm prairie rats.

[wierd]

That is incorrect.  Numerous studies of "Monogomous birds" reveal rampant cheating.


The latter is untrue as well.  Most cultures that have multiple spouses permitted, have a "First husband/wife" understood role. This is the truly pair-bonded couple. The others are attaches to the relationship, and I am not touching that with a 100 meter pole.

The notion of being able to pork total strangers, and not be affected neurobiologically, is what I will address. It is a lie.


And, again, those voles are selected because of their analogous neurochemistry.  This is because subjecting human test subjects to those kinds of experiments is UNETHICAL.  

Do I need to remind that special pleading is a crime against intellect?

[martinuzz]

Then they are not monogamous and need to be reclassified.