Ranking Strings Attached to Casual Sex

[shytiger]

And so let's move on to other temperaments. Generally, I think Rationals would be next in line for a successful temporary sexual bonding. Like Artisans, they are highly Utilitarian. Pardon me, Rationals, but I imagine the thought process might go something like this: "I'm horny. Today I'd rather have sex with someone else rather than pleasure myself. Who is available? I'm attracted to person x, y, and z -- I'll give "y" a call first. She said something about Tantric sex the last time we met."

Coming from the other way, "My Rational friend Susie said to call if I got lonely. Hello, Susie, I'm lonely. If you are open to it, I'd like to have sex with you at some point."

My experience with Rationals is generally they want clarity about what you want. When they themselves ask direct questions like this, they expect to be accepted or turned down and probably won't dwell morbidly on a negative outcome. In turn, they expect you not to brood either when they turn you down. After all, there are lots of fish in the sea (a phrase I believe was first spoken by a Rational).

Okay, have at it, friends.

I would say that's true. I would also add that a Rational would strategize to minimize their OWN entanglements, probably by using the internet to find a complete stranger and not even giving their name, phone number, or address. Although Inventors I've talked to who do this sort of thing seem to prefer the FWB type relationships where there are definite entanglements but not any expectation of romance. In this case, the nature of the relationship will be discussed and agreed upon so there are no misconceptions.

[Goodrum]

Agree Christina, Guardians (in my experience), are not prudes, meaning I hear what they talk about, the intimate part of their lives is fun. My experience having been married to a Supervisor, definitely not a prude! Exploratory King of Fornification. Great they have fun and get to chill and relax too. Good for them. (Only my observations, I think Ozzies might be relatively culturally ...? relaxed in regard to sex also). It is talked about a lot, as much as sport, it's a national pasttime ...

As a society, Australia is more liberal in it's media sex, eg tv, than the US, we have tended to restrict violence exposre as entertainment than sex or nudity. There have been shows/programs here on tv historically that would never have been passed by US censorship. Whereas my understanding, and the feedback to us here is the US is okay with the amount of violence, yet censors nudity, sex.

[JackDermody]

[quote="Goodrum"]Agree Christina, Guardians (in my experience), are not prudes,quote]

It'd be fun to go on a tangent about how each temperament acts as a prude. I loathe all prudes.

[Goodrum]

Prudes....but I wonder if my understanding of prudish is yours? Or the next person?

The Guardians around me love to talk of sexual matters, who is getting it, how much, where, all that stuff, it almost becomes the smalltalk of sex, they do smalltalk most excellently and around these parts sex is not exclusive to that. So, as a topic, it's not hush hush, it's rather treated as any other subject, open for discussion, amusement.

There smalltalk dialogues are conducive to their wellbeing, so many levels, all aspects of life, they just love to catch up and chatter.

More specific, the Supervisor is no prude, he is very comfortable with sexuality, really imaginative, I have actually asked him how is it in this area he plays and uses his imagination so well, his response was along the lines of it was stuff he had observed and wanted to do and try for himself-so there you go.

He is not into tie me up/down stuff, (the S and M), it repels him, also he has a very strong sense of consensual-anything. He abhors any sexual violence. He has had experience with other women, including one night stands, and was actually engaged, (then they split up) long before he started chasing me...he openly discusses all matters, I think apart from that it's wahoo here go.... here we come.

Myself, I agree on consensual, that is the underlying lynchpin of life, extending into intimacy, other than that I'm kinda really cooperative and responsive with a few interesting ideas smatterings of my own. And rather enthusiastic type, I'm not sure I would describe myself as prudish, maybe more along shy and like privacy. The Guardian openess attitude toward sex has indeed helped me be more open about it.

I have no impressions of the Guardians around being of prudish nature, they just really enjoy the fun aspects of life. And discuss it. Sometimes it's too much information.

Oh yeah, my Protector Guardian sister caught her boyfriend (engaged then, now married), Composer artisan playing footsies with another girl at one stage and told him you either want to be in the relationship with me or with Ms Footsy, but you cannot have both, choose. So her values?/rules? were coming to fore there, you don't cross my little sister. (He chose her.)

[Al3322]

The Rationals that I know have had only one partner at a time. I think that Rationals might be some of the least likely to look for temporary sex partners. We tend to control our emotions because we are afraid of and don’t trust them. We are not as likely as some others to take many emotional chances and we want to have a lot of trust in our partners. As far as extramarital sex, I think of Elliot Spitzer as an example; and, even he, used the same prostitute.

Today, after some drama,heated exchanges about slow play and club throwing, I asked one of my Artisan golf partners about it. KM now seems to be happily married to his third wife. He said that when he was single and working as a mortgage broker he had a large variety of experiences and recommended this as a profession for its opportunity to find a lot of willing temporary sex partners. He said that his only home responsibility was his dog, who didn’t care, and, if some female was interested he would pursue it.

This is something that I have seen often with both females and males who have a lot of different partners. They have the ability to find people of like mind who are willing to have some fun without any commitment. This type is not a predator seducing someone or two work colleagues who fall into infatuation and have an affair. They deliberately seek out no commitment affairs.

Of course things don’t always work out that way.

[JackDermody]

Prudes....but I wonder if my understanding of prudish is yours? Or the next person?

The word "prude" has a stronger connotation than a denotation. One dictionary says a prude is someone who gives excessive attention to decorum. In other words, a prude has issues that some people share but that most people probably don't care that much about -- thus their uber-attention to decorum gets annoying to average people around them. This "denotation" seems innocent enough, but the word "prude " itself will trully piss off the prude if called that to their face. The connotation is a bunch of stuff that include "uptight, unreasonably moralistic, stupidly anal, not cool," etc., etc.

That said -- and despite your up-close-and-personal interaction with an actual non-prudish Guardian, dear Goodrum -- I associate prudery almost exclusively with the 50% of the world that is Guardians. For Rationals to be prudes seems irrational. Artisans offend prudes the most, it would seem. Idealists are usually flexible enough to welcome both prudes and prude-baiters into their circles. ON THE OTHER HAND, genuine lack of decorum will offend most people because decorum is required for a Rational's working space, an Artisans performance venue, or an Idealist's space for peace and harmony -- and thus their demand for decorum could evolve into "excessive attention to decorum."

Perhaps I've treated this issue excessively?

[shytiger]

If there is a prudish temperament, it's us. The attentive Rationals in particular wouldn't really know how to go about finding a casual sex partner unless they had some cache, e.g. they were very famous and had groupies. It's not that we have a problem with sex, it's just that we consider physical pleasure to be a lower form of pleasure. Hence, there's always a danger of this happening:

[JackDermody]

Female rant:

Men are sluts.

If you mean by "sluts" that men are not natural monagamists, I think you're right. Monagamy and marriage were invented out of necessity: to solve dire problems like frequent crimes of passion, child neglect, and the protection of assets. Beyond this cynicism, monogamy produces many great lifelong friendships between spouses, time to care about other things besides sex, more attention to children, etc. Yes, I am a a lucky guy with the right woman. I love my wife. But underneath all that, most of us are lying if we claim we ever lose our "inner slut".

[RandomUser191]

so prudes are people who avoid and don't wanna discuss certain topics?

i for one, really don't like talking about sex or my love life (at least not in everyday life). since forums are still somewhat anonymous, i'm more open about it on some sites.

my female idealist friends seemed to be very interested in those topics but luckily they lost more and more interest in my answers about them.

i'm a guy with secrets. why can't people just respect that?

[shytiger]

Female rant:

Men are sluts.

If you mean by "sluts" that men are not natural monagamists, I think you're right. Monagamy and marriage were invented out of necessity: to solve dire problems like frequent crimes of passion, child neglect, and the protection of assets. Beyond this cynicism, monogamy produces many great lifelong friendships between spouses, time to care about other things besides sex, more attention to children, etc. Yes, I am a a lucky guy with the right woman. I love my wife. But underneath all that, most of us are lying if we claim we ever lose our "inner slut".

Women aren't natural monogamists either. There is now a fair bit of data to indicate that men are biologically adapted to deal with women having sex with multiple partners in a short period of time: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep021223.pdf. Women are less slutty than men but not entirely.