Photo by Flickr user Tal Bright used under a Creative Commons license.
I enjoy answering the questions and taking the quizzes on OkCupid as I’ve mentioned elsewhere. If nothing else it’s great blogging fodder (although, of course, it’s a great way to find people you’d be at least compatible with, if not actually romantically ideal for, all over the world.)
Anyway, one question that came up I simply couldn’t answer at all.
Do you enjoy meaningless sex?
- Yes
- No
Alright, how do you even answer that question? By “meaningless sex” does one mean a brief sexual encounter with an interesting, incredibly compatible person one meets under circumstances that can’t possibly lead to a long-term relationship? Or by “meaningless” does one mean one more right-after-Leno resetting of the hormonal/horniness clock with one’s married partner of many years?
That’s a trick answer, of course, in the sense that both of the examples I gave are particularly heightened counterexamples of the familiar definitions of “meaningless sex.” But to the extent I’m a prudish libertine that I would have more problems with the latter than I would with the former. And it’s not so much approve of all sex inside or outside of marriage (although I tend to) as much as I just question the assumption that if one insists on assigning meaning to sex in the first place then the mere fact of marriage grants meaning to all sex within it.
[Warning note: the photo after the jump is again more risqué than usual. —fl]
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-10-28 18:32.
The question puzzles me because I can't quite work out how there can be such a thing as "meaningless" sex. I mean, if neither participant was going to get anything from it (i.e. it had no meaning) then they wouldn't do it in the first place, right?
About the nearest thing I can imagine would be something like this:
[Man and woman sitting on a couch somewhere doing nothing]
MAN: I'm bored.
WOMAN: Me too.
MAN: What shall we do?
WOMAN: Let's have sex.
MAN: Yeah, might as well be bored having sex as bored watching television.
WOMAN: Yeah.
[They have meaningless sex]
NB If either the man or the woman or both in that scene were doing it because they enjoyed the sex, or because the sex relieved their boredom, I would describe it as "recreational" and not "meaningless". (For the one who was still bored, I would describe it as a "mercy shag", which is still a form of meaning).
I think there is an unstated "worthiness" assumption underlying the idea of "meaningless" sex,, which is that some reasons for having sex are valuable or important, and others are valueless and unimportant (and therefore, "without meaning"). The message we are sold is Sex for the right reasons is "worthy". Sex for the wrong reasons is "unworthy".
If we accept that all sex has meaning, and that all the various reasons and meanings sex can have, are real reasons that have some value to the people having sex, then the "guilt" thing surrounding sex becomes much harder to sustain. It also frees people to enjoy sex for what it is and not feel that they have to attach particular gender- or hetero-normative meanings and reasons to it.
[Yeah, I think the slip comes from deciding that sex needs to have some *productive* purpose, which sort of pushes adherents to the brink of a slippery slope. One of several actually. Thanks, S. --fl]
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-10-29 00:39.
It's probably a meaningless question. Unless of course it means sex for any reason other than procreation.
[Yes, and in the context of a dating site it *probably* doesn't mean procreation only. And of course the questioner almost certainly meant "getting together only for sex and not even a cup of coffee before or after." One *could* intelligently and unambiguously answer *that* yes or no. It just wasn't stated that way. Thank you, A. --fl]
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-10-29 04:53.
*prrrrrs* Nice pic...
As to meaningless sex.. umm... it exists?
I know there's certainly bad sex (and when it's bad, it's really bad). But sex always _means_ something.
The test is probably talking about the whole deep-relationship I-can't-live-without-you-sex or something.. mistakingly thinking that sex without deep-earth-shattering-love means nothing. Just two robots doing the deed.
[Yes, bad sex or good sex makes complete sense. But presumably one could have bad "meaningful" sex and good "meaningless" sex. So you're right, it's not a good substitution. Thanks, Q. --fl]
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-10-29 06:01.
What Snowdrop said
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-10-29 13:05.
Put me in the no such thing as meaningless sex camp.
[Thanks, E! --fl]
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-30 06:43.
Sex for the right reasons is "worthy". Sex for the wrong reasons is "unworthy".
I actually do think there's such a thing as sex for the wrong reasons; if nothing else, sex with certain motives is more likely to be done in ways that are actually hurtful to someone than sex with other motives. But sex for the wrong reasons isn't "meaningless"; it's bad sex. Bad sex has plenty of meaning; it's just not a positive meaning, or one that adds value to people's lives.
[Exactly! "Bad" is sort of the opposite of "meaningless." As, of course, is "good" or, literally, any other statement implying judgment. Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 1718 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-10-28 23:09.
I was going to post "I don't believe in meaningless sex" but I see that I was beaten like a bad doggy.
Stil, I'd answer "Yes", because I like people who like sex, and I wouldn't diss on any kind of it. I'd be too worried that people who answered "No" would be thinking "meaningful=in love", and I definitely don't believe that love sex is the only good sex.
[I thought of that too, Holly, except, of course, answering yes might put off people who like to be at least *friends* with their sex partners. Fortunately OkCupid allows you to just skip questions and for me I decided to just stay away. Thanks! --fl]