Someone can have good friends and also someone they spend everyday with for 50 years.

That doesn't have to be the same person every day. It can be 50 different people. It can even be your self.

The casual sex "choice" doesn't apply to the majority of adults (most straight men don't have the option of multiple sex partners, most women don't want them) so it's difficult to see its relevance here.

If you mean throughout their life rather than concurrently, that doesn't really affect the idea that marriage itself is of special significance.

How much of that is social expectation? I can see the circular reasoning here: can I get out?

That is a challenge. Social expectations set boundaries: changing those boundaries takes a lot of work. It's still possible, though. To me, it's worth the effort.

That implies a need for faith and trust in a person. Where does is that need come from? Committed romance.

If that isn't my goal, what do I have to fear?

I'm not here to belittle you personally. I'm here to confront your ideas.

What are you here for?

It's clear there is no separation between church and state. People just debate the religion of the "church".

Yes, we can change social expectations and boundaries. We did change social expectations and boundaries. It was called the "Sexual Revolution" and it happened over half a century ago. It's old news. This is where we've ended up since then.

I could really use an aftershock.

This is precisely the issue at hand.

I'm not pestering you for sex; in fact I am not pestering anyone at all! Yet here you are pestering me for expressing an interest in it.

--

Am I a pest for leaving the Mormon Church? Am I a pest for drinking alcohol at home?

Whatever happened to the religious freedom y'all keep telling me about? Can I have some?

No but there does seem to be a strong correlation between people who were raised in strict religious households and a strong predilection towards sex. I kind of already assumed that you were ex-religious before you said so.

You are free to believe and do whatever you like, but don't presume that everyone else is a prude because they don't look at sex the way you do. Or that your perspective should be the norm. People overwhelmingly choose and hope for monogomy despite society largely accepting casual sexual encounters as "normal". There's no telling the extent of the damage that has done to people's ability to pair bond successfully and develop interpersonal relationships.

I won't. I'll assume they are a prude when they call me a "sex pest".

> Or that your perspective should be the norm.

I just have to accept the inverse. Got it.

--

> People overwhelmingly choose and hope for monogomy despite society largely accepting casual sexual encounters as "normal".

I would like to live in that society please. Oh right, you want to vilify it because casual sex offends you; and you are not alone, which is precisely the source of my troubles.

I have plenty of deep and fulfilling interpersonal relationships. I'm quite good at that, as it happens.

--

What the fuck do you want from me? Do you want me to pretend I actually crave committed monogamy? Wouldn't that make me the actual pest?

That doesn't sound any different from asking my trans friends to pretend they are cis or my gay friends pretend they are hetero.

I would much rather be honest. Unfortunately, this social situation you are holding over my head is making it a lot easier to just stay silent. Thanks for that.

Straight women’s sexuality is drastically different from gay men, lesbian women, and straight men. It’s not much of anything like the rest. There’s a desire for the attention and approval of straight men (probably due to patriarchal reasons) but there’s often a missing desire for the straight men as they are. (I assume this is more biological) It’s why we see so many straight women being completely content with living an asexual lifestyle whereas straight men are completely miserable.

My theory is that this dynamic is mostly narrative-based, but partly physical:

Our social narrative says that a man's sexuality is dangerous, and that a woman's sexuality is fragile. It also says that safety comes from commitment.

The physical difference (that applies to sexual intercourse) between cis men and cis women is genitalia. The penis is homologous to the clitoris, and the vagina is homologous to the prostate. When a cis man has sex, he probably uses his penis, but when a cis woman has sex, she probably uses her vagina.

Most people who have mastered prostate stimulation can tell you it requires a completely different mental approach (headspace) than penis stimulation. This rules out most cis men, to whom the prostate is usually on a spectrum from unfamiliar to taboo: that gives queer/gay/trans people kind of opportunity advantage.

The headspace I'm talking about here is more of a yearning for connection (to connect with the prostate/vagina), as opposed to feeling impressed with and excited by someone's figure (to connect with the penis/clitoris).

The feeling of safety and commitment that can be found in a monogamous relationship is a really effective way to get into that headspace. This means that the utility of a committed romance can be directly applied to a cis woman's sexual experience, in the same way porn can be applied to a cis man's experience. This is where goals can be misaligned categorically along the boundary of sex.

The trick is to prioritize the people around you, rather than material gains for yourself.

Just a few more pulls and the big payout will come. You've spent so many quarters on the slot machine, it'll definitely pay out at any moment.

> thought the same thing when I was younger but now I'm in the prime of my dating and casual sex life.

I had a very charismatic friend who ended up in this situation of being a sex partner to 4-5 very attractive women in this sort of poly relationship thing.

Just like the first time you go to the bar and it's full of alcohol and people, it was fun. Genuinely good looking women and he just had to have sex or sometimes fun adventures with them. None of the "gunk" of relationships, none of the work.

Well that fun doesn't last very long. Pandemic happened, everyone isolated and went to their "nesting" mate and uh.. it wasn't him. He wasn't anyone's #1. He was just a convenient sex toy who bought dinner.

He still isn't anyone's #1.

You sound like someone who has won at gambling.

Your success is not the only possible or valid path.

What you have shared may be wise advice, but advice itself is never a guarantee.

I decided a while ago to be better at being with people, and started preparing myself toward that goal. It's taken a while but I'm doing well now. Also I've set myself up for success by living in a place that attracts and fosters the kinds of folks I like to spend time with -- this is really super important, people aren't the same everywhere you go. Then as summer began coming on this year and people seem to have dropped all those pandemic-time idiosyncracies I've been giving myself ample opportunity to mix with extended friend groups and random meetups (mostly bike rides and races in my case) to great benefit for everyone involved.

The expectation is that I'm filling a void with casual relationships; and that that void is a single committed romance.

I never had that void to begin with. I sincerely am fulfilled by uncommitted relationships. They aren't casual to me: they are as serious and meaningful to me as monogamous partnership is to my parents.

The most important part to me is empathy. I crave new ideas and perspectives: I get them by empathizing with more people.

In all sincerity, it sounds like you're just talking out of your ass. The world exists around you, not inside your own mind. You are no more or less special than me.

So you are giving no thought to what I have said whatsoever; and are simply touting your own opinion as important.

Fuck you too?

If you have already decided that the only person who matters in your life is your spouse, then you have already decided I don't matter.

So what in the world are you doing here? What do you seek to gain?

Everything you have said to me so far amounts to two words: "fuck you". How am I to respond? In kind? That is the question I asked earlier in 3.

Those can never fulfill what a life partner is.

Friends are great. Casual sex can be great. Neither of those give you someone who is so close to you they become part of your identity.

Casual sex especially can be deceiving if one person is using that as a vehicle for emotional investment and the other isn't. That's how people get deeply hurt.

Relationships end. Even the most loved partner eventually dies. Your friendships and casual sex friend relationships probably end more frequently, are shorter and never have the chance for depth.

Maybe you find the right person and get deep quickly, but that's like giving up a savings account hoping to win the lottery.

You know that sex is not exclusive to intimacy. Do you know that intimacy is not exclusive to sex?

I have found the right person many times. I don't stop when I find them. That's like putting all of your investment into one stock.

Maybe you did win the lottery. That's great! Should I be expecting the same experience? I don't.

> Casual sex especially can be deceiving if one person is using that as a vehicle for emotional investment and the other isn't. That's how people get deeply hurt.

That's what a lot of marriages are. The only resolution to this situation is communication.

Why is that communication difficult? We have a strong social expectation for exclusive romantic commitment. To pursue non-committed romance is to break that social expectation. It's difficult, but not impossible.

We would all be better off without that expectation. If people felt free to pursue casual relationships, they would be more likely to self-select away from the dating pool of serious-commitment seekers.

Instead, we have people being dishonest and subversive about their relationship goals, because they feel it is the only way to fulfill their need for sex and intimacy. They end up in a relationship with someone who depends on their commitment, but that very commitment is a lie: a lie told to the other person, and often even to themselves.

Trying to equate them all as relationships is a misdirection. Relationships with your friends, parents, children, and spouse are not going to be comparable ever. They each have their place. We are trying to flatten them out to how they make us feel. This is an obtuse hammer for an intricately shaped interior.

Example: children are about the future, friendships are not commitments, parents are a compass, spouse is life insurance. (I am simplifying to make a point.)

If you try to expect your spouse to give you the same feeling like your parents do or your children do, that’s a disaster. If you try to think of your spouse in the same way as your friend that’s a disaster too. Spouses require commitments. Friends require recognition. Children require care. Parents require service.

Reality is that much of society has forgotten what a spouse is supposed to be and tries to reinterpret it as friendship. It’s the reason why we are so broken.

If you're simplifying you're missing the point of this. But I suspect you're not just simplifying to make a point, but this is actually what you believe.

Maybe you've never had a really close friendship that you've felt obligated to keep alive. That requires work to fix something about it. It's absolutely a commitment. You can make any level of commitment to anyone. It's not a sexual commitment, but for example how many people have you wronged if you sleep with a friend's spouse? It's not just your own spouse.

You've also wronged your friend in that. And I can tell you, if you have children, that the fallout from that likely means you've wronged your children. The same act functionally affects all of those people in a similarly meaningful way. That makes them all reasonably commitments in the same way that you see marriage as a commitment.

There are pieces of a friendship that you are agreeing to or the friendship will end. That makes it a much weaker contract, but also means it requires a lot more work to keep alive. Parents/family are the opposite of that. Because the contract of parenthood/family is so strong, it's a lot less work to keep that bond well. But you can absolutely fuck it up and cut people loose.

My siblings and I aren't close because we're related. The proof of that is my parents and I aren't close. They rely too much on thinking they don't have to show up for the relationship because "they created/raised me." My siblings, friends and romantic relationships know I could end the relationship if I'm unhappy with it. They are all the same, and all invested in it. They don't think they deserve anything special from me. They know they have to earn it.

I don't feel obligation to keep these relationships alive. I just do because I've gotten good things out of them in the past. If you think there's something special about the contract of marriage... I gotta tell you, that divorce is a thing.

There is no difference between any of these. I can join or leave any of these relationships as I like, and I do for the same reasons. Maybe not the exact same reasons, but the same general reasons of "I'm getting less out than I am putting in".

Sorry that your world is so deeply broken where blood relationships don’t mean anything to you. Family is family and that matters more than friendships. Even if you find greater acceptance in other social circles, family is always going to be different.

Joining and leaving relationships isn’t the only kind of relationship that exist. Some are bonds that you cannot break. Some are contracts that you enter into. And some are transient and fleeting, like you described.

Virtually all relationships are a trade. No trade means no relationship.

4. I don't know what you mean by all relationships are a trade, but it's the most similar thing I see to my other assessments except that you have a strange carveout for points 1-3.

But this single conversation isn't representative of the entire rest of their life! Just because they are angry with you does not mean they are angry with everyone else! If you can't see that, it's because you are a narcissist.

You think what you are saying is what everyone is saying? On the contrary! I'm a person, and I'm right here saying something else!

> You make your own world of explanations to feel like everything is ok.

We've just illustrated that is what you are doing right here. This is a pretty clear-cut case of projection.

Are you just too old to know any better? I don't buy that sentiment at all: if you can read, you can learn.

Nah, I'm angry with you, as a rational reaction to your narcissism. You should do something about that.

Something to consider working on...

If you can’t, that’s something to work on.

Just gonna jump in here and say, I was not angry in this post. So that's just a wrong assessment...

> You are too young to know any better.

I don't know how old you are, but if your argument depends on me being in a specific age range, I'm going to guess you're too conceited to have an actual conversation with. In practice, I think the signs of this were there from the start but I engaged anyways, so that's my bad. But uhh, stop being rude on the internet? It sounds like you should know better for however old you might be...

OOC, what in the initial message makes you think I was angry when I'm telling you I was not? (Oh all-knowing-being who can tell me what's inside my head that I cannot even see)

Certainly not with that attitude!

I don't require commitment, therefore I am not interested in a spouse.

Remember: I am not you.

You don't see it this way, but unfortunately, "traditional" marriage & gender roles, including having lots of kids has become an ID pol issue for political conservatives and the religious right. In the past, we see conservatives attacks on abortion and espousal of replacement theory. Very recently, we've seen legislation come up to try and do away with no-fault divorce. Also see the tradwife movement.

Surely if age has made you so much more wise, you would be prepared to express that wisdom.

On the other hand, if age has inflated your ego to the point you are unwilling to even consider a different perspective, then why are you here?

I can understand you disagreeing with me. That's fine.

But where is the substance of that disagreement? All I see right now is indifference: you have discounted my opinion, not rejected it.

The purpose of discussions like this is objectivity: we don't need to wait around to be proven wrong when we can confront the ideas head on now.