CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006 Status: offline
|
I suppose it all has to do with how one view's sexuality, within themselves and within others. People use the term "casual" sex in a way that, for the most part, comes across as not so fulfilling but I wonder...if it were defined as to just how that person views casual sex and another were to explain to them that for them, that is not the definition of casual sex, would it make a difference? Can you not have casual sex with a long-term partner or is each and every encounter of a sexual nature transformed by what you share with that person? In other words, can sex sometimes just be sex for sex' sake? When I have a submissive partner, I feel a connection with them. I would be the first to admit that the connection enhances the sexual interactions between us and yet, I would also be the first to admit that sometimes, the connection has little to do with some of the sexual encounters I have had with these partners...other than to make it easier to "go at it"...sometimes it was just sex for sex's sake. And yes, these encounters often left me feeling more energized and closer to them mentally and emotionally. Sometimes, they left my physical/lustful side satiated and that was it. Did that make it casual? Or, because they were my partner, was it more intimate than casual, even though lust was the only candle being burnt? And if she was the one who had her "hornpuss" satisfied and that was all she was looking for, did that make it casual for her, even though she satisfied that lust with her master? Nice thread, jali. As others noted, it certainly got me thinking.
|