Talk:Casual sex

message: 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)
thread_title: Addition of "Unprotected"

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of material more suited to an essay on morality

message: *"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)
thread_title:  Religious View 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casual sex vs. extra-marital sex

message: 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)
thread_title:  Very definition is possibly POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More science 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Globalize tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  difference Casual sex / Libertine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits to '1920s' section; suggestions for further work 

message: 5.7 220 lbs 142.170.90.130 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homme cherche femme