Talk:Casual sex

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cstrawther167.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added the word unprotected in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph because without it it sounded like it was shunning any type of sex, not just unprotected. If you disagree, feel free to change it back. It's just my opinion. --24.13.233.141 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the following because it sounds like an essay on morality and contains lot of weaseling, "in some cultures" etc. Of no use to anyone.

i.e. an instance of a non-formalised sexual encounter outside of the predominant sexual norm. The degree of discrimination (no-saying) appropriate to human sexual behaviour is socially regulated according to culturally specific norms.

In some cultures, unrestrained sexual activity may be considered inappropriate. Some consider sexual engagement without a view to commitment or relationship-building, in other words "sex for sex' sake" alone, shameful. Others contend that it is in fact the purest form of libidinal expression. Sexual activity beyond the socially prescribed parameter is pejoratively referred to as casual sex.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that most of that seems like rhetoric. I do, however, think that there could be some mention that some people see casual sex as inappropriate and even reckless, while others see it as being okay and acceptable. I will leave that up to someone else to add to the article if they see fit. --BeastRHIT 04:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • I've added something. Something referenced would be better; I just tried to provide a framework for links to other articles, which frankly need work too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Why no mention to the legendary bad movie (which I've attempted to watch all the way through MANY times on TBS Superstation on a weekend at like, 2:20AM or something, only to give up a little more than an hour point!) 'Casual Sex?' (1988), w/ Lea Thompson, Victoria Jackson and Andrew "Dice" Clay? I think it's Wikipedia worthy. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094846/

• "Casual sex became socially acceptable, and divorce and abortions became easier to obtain."

• "While casual sex became increasingly acceptable in certain subcultures, counteradvocacy of sexual abstinence also increased. Changes in the legal structure providing easier access to divorce and abortion have also posed significant religious dilemmas"

Although there may have been "counteradvocacy" of sexual abstinence, and it may have posed religious dilemmas, is this the place for it? The article is about "casual sex" not about "Religious views of sexuality".

The first statement says it cleanly, and in a neutral POV, not making any comment about whether it was a good thing, a bad thing, but just stating how the approach to casual sex changed in the 60's and 70's during the sexual revolution.

The change in from the 50's to th 70's clearly was from casual sex being not socially accepted, to becoming socially acceptable. We aren't talking about whether it is now, or whether ot should be, or whether you or I agree with peple who have casual sex or not.

Maybe if you add another section about the nineties, you could talk about how casual sex has declined, and abstinence has come to be advocated more frequently, and how HIV and AIDS has struck down many people who were promiscuous, had casual unprotected sex. Atom 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I added the {{POV}} non-neutrality tag because I felt the article was biased towards a conservative viewpoint. The article over-emphasizes the viewpoints of people who think casual sex is immoral. --Strangerer 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • I've since removed the sections I felt were non-neutral/biased (the two quotations). I'll leave the {{POV}} up for a little bit in case someone disputes the edits I made in removing those quotations. --Strangerer 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia distinguishes Casual sex from extramarital sex, and rightly so.

I think that many conservatives object not to casual sex per-se, but to all forms of extra-marital sex. I think that people who object to extramarital sex generally use a fundamentally different argument and different reasoning from people who object to casual sex and promiscuity. In particular, there are those with liberal views on many aspects of sexuality (including extra-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.) that object to casual sex on moral grounds. The articles on promiscuity and extramarital sex are the appropriate places to put material on views specific to these types of sex. We should limit material on this article to views specific to casual sex. Cazort 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's a question - does sexual activity such as the use of prostitutes, or participation in organised swinging, also count as casual sex? These occur outside the context of romantic relationships, but are arguably quite formal in nature. 217.155.20.163 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I've added something to reflect this.

Prostitution and swinging would both count as casual sex, under the definitions 'sex in the absence of emotional attachment or love' and 'promiscuity'. The relative formality doesn't matter in this case, and they're not much more formal than other types of casual sex, such as one-night stands organised by the parties ahead of time. --Xagg (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how prostitution could be seen as "casual" sex. There's nothing casual about prostitution. The sex acts performed are a contractual obligation between employer and sex worker with an exchange of money or fungible goods. I don't see how that fits the spirit of casual. JVB (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The 'casual' aspect of sex via prostitution is the same as that of one-night stands, anonymous sex, etc.: it is sex in the 'absence of emotional attachment or love' - involving no obligation to relations or emotional attachment with the partner(s) outside of the sex itself. Although there may be one more formality in prostitution, the sex is still casual in the aforementioned sense. --Xagg (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think that definition of casual sex used in this article is too narrow and is moving into the realm of POV. Only one source is cited, and that book has a very specific bias (it is written from a feminist perspective, and it argues specific views about casual sex in the context of women's sexual liberation). This use conflicts slightly with a couple dictionary definitions I found online. The term "casual sex" is often used without being defined and it is used in different contexts--it's not defined precisely and I think that this article wrongly leads one to believe that it does have a single, precise definition. For example, some people use the term to refer to any sex outside of a romantic relationship, whereas others use the term to refer to sex without any sort of emotional attachment. These are two very different definitions. I am going to change this, but I'd appreciate others giving this some thought and possibly looking for sources citing other perspectives too and finding better ways to word this; I'm not the best writer. Cazort 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am suggesting that One-night stand and Anonymous sex be merged with casual sex as sections within this article. They are aspects of the same topic. SilkTork 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think they should remain separate pages. Anonymous sex and a one-night stand are basically subsets of casual sex. Anonymous sex has unique risks associated with it and is quite different from other forms of casual sex. It has also been studied as a phenomenon of its own, quite extensively; the pages might be small enough to consolidate now but if they were adequately populated by material from the scholarly literature, I think having them together in one page would be muddled. Keeping them separate helps to clarify these distinctions. Cazort 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I feel that the One-night stand article should remain separate from the Casual sex article. I'm not too sure on how I feel about the subject of the Anonymous sex article on this matter, however. Flyer22 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
• I also feel that One-night standshould remain seperate from Casual sex as casual sex may repeat itself with the same partner and be in itself a form of a relationship although with low commitment as a one-night-stand is very close to anonymous sex Anonymous sex and is not repeated with the same partner.Site310.13 23 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the merge tag from these three articles, seeing as at this time...the consensus is not to merge. Flyer22 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I briefed a little about them in this article, but individual articles are long enough for separate articles. Charm-sto 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add a tag without stating what the dispute is. --Morenooso (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I got here on WP:RCP and I saw this edit:

The advent of the pill and other forms of birth control, the Women's Liberation movement, and the legalization of abortion in many countries is believed to have led to a wider practice of casual sex.

It's not vandalism, but, apart from lacking citations, in my opinion it is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. You can call me Salvio (Parla meco ^{talk to me}) 01:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are citations for that section now which support the paragraph. Your opinion now becomes WP:OR. Please remove the tag. --Morenooso (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A simple google search on any of the main terms in that paragraph will offer you many pages that support the paragraph. Slapping a drive-by tag and not explaining your tag does a real dis-service to the regular editors of this article. --Morenooso (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I am a Page Patroller too and have this article on Watch. When I saw the anonymous IP delete the section, which could be considered contentious, I restored it with an edit summary of please discuss on talkpage as per the warning I issued it. Just because you see something on WP:RCP is not cause to issue a tag in your opinion.--Morenooso (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll remove the tag, because I realise that it's not really a POV issue - my bad, there -, but I still think that there are two issues (one minor: the sources you provide do not draw the conclusion you draw, at least from what I've gathered from skimming over them; and one a little more serious: it's still WP:WEASEL). Now I've to go, so if I do not reply swiftly it's not because I intend to be offensive. ;) You can call me Salvio (Parla meco ^{talk to me}) 01:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Take your time but you may remove the tag now. Opinions should NEVER be used for placing fly-by tags.--Morenooso (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Already removed.

And, by the way, if not opinions, what should be used? You can call me Salvio (Parla meco ^{talk to me}) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You do what the tag tells you to do - discuss it on the talkpage. There was a discussion on this matter back in 2007. Your bad needs new non POV discussion as well as Wikipedia:Consensus. There are no weasel words in that paragraph which is another real stretch or dis-service. There are a number of admins who have this page on Watch besides me. If we felt those situations existed, we as senior editors would have added them.

Regular editors and Watchers usually know what need to be done with an article. It has not had major issues as you imply in over two years. --Morenooso (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added a scientific reference to a study from the University of Iowa. It would be good to develop a discussion of the science on the correlates, causes and effects of hooking up.--Babank (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will admit that this article needs work, but I also agree that the very nature of this seems POV. Mainly due to the idea that its seems to be done from a puritanical influenced U.S. perspective. Obviously there are differing viewpoints on human sexuality around the world along with views of the human body itself. For example, at one end of the spectrum going topless (for a female) at a beach in Europe is considered acceptable and at the other end are parts of the Middle East where women are completely covered at all times.

Another observation I'd like to make is about the practice of having a mistress. In some parts of the word its considered acceptable, in others its criminal. The same goes for prostitution. The article just seems unbalanced is many ways.

How can this be addressed? Anyone know of a global study on sexual practices? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casual sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Casual sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528183613/https://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Ben%20Franklin%20--%20The%20Pill/students.mwc.edu/_bfran8wk/PILL/impac.html to http://www.umw.edu/hisa/resources/Student%20Projects/Ben%20Franklin%20--%20The%20Pill/students.mwc.edu/_bfran8wk/PILL/impac.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419123106/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n3_v35/ai_21123356/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n3_v35/ai_21123356/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casual sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121175822/http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632 to http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Strange those two notions look like each other - one looks like a "new name" of the ancient notion - and no § to explain the difference.

My opinion : if there is a difference, explain it ; else way explain one notion is the new name of the other - in that last case thereby would be quoted the names "Don Juan" / "Casanova" / "Sade".

Magnon86 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)magnon86Reply

Wikipedia does not have an informative page about Friends with benefits relationships. There is this page about casual sex and other specific relationships that involve casual sex such as Casual dating and Swinging (sexual practice) but no page about Friends with benefits. Friends with benefits relationships had info on the Casual dating page but casual dating is an entirely different relationship than friends with benefits. There is much specifically written about them and it deserves its own page. Thoughts?Mangokeylime (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mangokeylime, like I stated on your talk page, I don't see that it's necessary to have a separate "Friends with benefits" article. It is a form of casual sex, and "friends with benefits" is one of several terms for this form of casual sex. For example, "fuck buddies" is another. All "friends with benefits" needs is a section in this article. This is a WP:No page matter. Pull the "friends with benefits relationships" material from the Casual dating article and put it into this one. We have a Casual dating article because casual dating doesn't automatically equate to sex. "Friends with benefits" is specifically about a type of casual sex. No need to WP:Ping me to this page, by the way. It's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've thought about the FWB thing for at least the past year, but I'm still not entirely decided. On the one hand, it does seem that Wikipedia has a problem with entirely too much forking goin' on. As a result, it's sometimes difficult to find a decent one-page overview of a subject, instead hitting a slough of teaser blurbs that require the reader to click away in order to do more than skim the surface of the subtopic, and then those articles diverge even further. (As cool as that is, it's a major reason I still read printed-on-paper books.) Maybe it's not a good idea to take a very short article and calve one off even smaller.

Then again, with all the polyamory and ENM whatnot gaining popularity (in fantasy if not practice), FWB clearly diverges from casual sex. Even if there's a deep emotional attachment between two people, societally there's less-and-less pressure to "do the escalator," of which dating and Romantic stuff are steps (along with cohabitation, commingled finances, spawning, etc.) that they may not need. Yet their attachment could be very emotionally deep and span even decades, outlasting their "serious" relationships (i.e., the "we'll always have Paris" gag on NCIS). Calling their occasional sexual interludes "casual" is down-talking it for not living up to some artificial (certainly outdated) "standard."

Plus, once-placid topics have got complicated: Decades ago, everyone was simply heterosexual or homosexual, but almost all sought sex and romance. Now we see the rise of asexuals, and nuances like demisexuals and other "grays"; in the other direction are the aromantics. Sending erotic tweets is increasingly considered a sexual act, even if the parties have never met or even seen images of each other. So, any article based from such "obvious" words likely should be monitored to ensure it doesn't turn into cramming topics together that are really related only vaguely.

As much as I detest the euphemism "FWB" — "benefits" seems to down-talk the intimacy, a job-like transaction — and though I'm unconvinced FWB deserves its own article (yet), increasingly I don't see it fitting well in Casual sex. Is there a third path, like shifting it to inclusion in a more suitable article?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I do agree with you that Wikipedia needs some good overview pages, but with the more research and commentary being produced on specifically "friendship with benefits" relationships as opposed to other casual sex practices like swinging or one-night stands, I think a page would do good. (Of course if we had info to fill it with).Mangokeylime (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

To fix some clunky and unsourced passages, I edited out some extraneous content in this section; replaced the History Today URL (a paywalled/partial article) in one citation with a link to the full article as a PDF. I also added a graf of text to clarify cultural context in this decade, with a new citation.

This article still has some problems (such as needing more social science findings, and perspectives in psychology, biology or anthropology among the secondary sources).

Also, as noted above, there are so many seemingly overlapping articles that a one-stop of social sexual practices (current ones, if not a historical overview) may be warranted -- a page with a brief overview summary and links to subtopic pages; or a longer omnibus article connecting these overheated topics across what is now a small galaxy of pages.

I however disagree with the idea that 'friends with benefits' should be an article separate from Casual sex, as it by definition belongs under this topic. Dano67 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

5.7 220 lbs 142.170.90.130 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply