4 ms·

I understand "casual love" poorly, but imagining myself engaging in it, I picture some chaotic asteroid collision chain reaction. The asteroids are people, and

I understand "casual love" poorly, but imagining myself engaging in it, I picture some chaotic asteroid collision chain reaction. The asteroids are people, and the collisions are the hook-ups. The hook-ups must be episodes of sex mixed with the psychological trauma of infatuation ("falling in love"?). It sounds horrifying and disruptive... But, to me, even sex in itself would be unappealing so casually; the only thing that can overcome the surface-level, material ugliness of other humans enough to make me want to have sex with them is long-term familiarity and mutual interest, and that sounds pretty anathema to "leave anytime, no expectations lol". :p So I guess the typical relationship escalator is what feels most natural to me. But then the poly model probably assures you a LOT more sex and relationships than mine, which requires meeting naturally and then building guarded, incremental trust, which, due to a mix of how our society is structured (there's HEAVY sexual partitioning of interests, hobbies, and careers) and my personality (I only engage with the most partitioned elements of society), ostensibly never happens for me. :D

davidjnelson 8y ago
> surface-level, material ugliness of other humans What does this mean? If it's just physical attraction, why not date more attractive people?
- IgorPartola 8y ago
  Not the person you are asking but if you think about it, sex is weird, gross, and makes you very vulnerable. For some that is offset by it being wonderful and hot and sexy, while for others it takes more to go past the reality of it. That’s why the asexual spectrum is a thing: not everyone is down with getting down. And because as a society we expect sex and sexual attraction to be the norm, people on that spectrum may not always be out about it. Not saying the other poster is on that spectrum, just pointing out that many different brain configuration exist, with some going “all the sex” all the way to “sex? No thanks.”
  - davidjnelson 8y ago
    That makes sense. It seems about 1% of the population is asexual from some quick googling.
    - IgorPartola 8y ago
      My guess is that it is slightly higher than that because often times the label “asexual” is applied to people who have 0 interest in sex, while others experience a reduced emphasis on sex, hence the “spectrum” part. Also it isn’t something people openly admit to it, so it suffers from the same problem as trying to quantify the numbers of people who identify as bisexual.
      - mercer 8y ago
        And then there's people who the label could be applied to, but spent much of their lives trying to conform to more socially acceptable ideas about sexuality.
IgorPartola 8y ago
I totally understand where you are coming from. Poly isn’t for everyone, casual love isn’t for everyone, and casual sex is most definitely not for everyone. Not engaging in those things is a valid choice, and if that is right for you, it is right for you. I will say that casual love != casual sex. You can experience casual love without any sex at all. You can form romantic relationships that do not involve sex. While I personally am not wired that way I have plenty of poly friends who are. The longest running podcast on the subject, Polyamory Weekly, to this day uses the slogan “it’s not all about the sex.” Casual sex for a lot of people is a much less satisfying experience than sex in a long term relationship. But to be fair, let’s acknowledge that loads of committed relationships also suffer in the bedroom, so it’s not all great there either. Ultimately it depends on you and your preferences/needs. And of course on the partners you select. Empirically I can say that I experience love towards a partner about 1/10 times or so. Though my sample size is not actually all that great because while poly, I am very very selective. This may be surprising but the reality is that poly doesn’t mean “screw everything with two legs.” It just means that if someone does interest you, you are free to explore that however you want, and your partners have the same freedom. Whether you choose to have one anchor partner who you share your home life with, or you do “solo poly” where you live alone and have multiple partners with whom you have no plans to ever progress on the escalator is 100% up to you. A couple of people I know actually identify as monogamous, while practicing Polyamory through their partner being poly. Not my cup of tea, but that seems right for them.

davidjnelson 8y ago

> surface-level, material ugliness of other humans What does this mean? If it's just physical attraction, why not date more attractive people?

IgorPartola 8y ago
Not the person you are asking but if you think about it, sex is weird, gross, and makes you very vulnerable. For some that is offset by it being wonderful and hot and sexy, while for others it takes more to go past the reality of it. That’s why the asexual spectrum is a thing: not everyone is down with getting down. And because as a society we expect sex and sexual attraction to be the norm, people on that spectrum may not always be out about it. Not saying the other poster is on that spectrum, just pointing out that many different brain configuration exist, with some going “all the sex” all the way to “sex? No thanks.”
- davidjnelson 8y ago
  That makes sense. It seems about 1% of the population is asexual from some quick googling.
  - IgorPartola 8y ago
    My guess is that it is slightly higher than that because often times the label “asexual” is applied to people who have 0 interest in sex, while others experience a reduced emphasis on sex, hence the “spectrum” part. Also it isn’t something people openly admit to it, so it suffers from the same problem as trying to quantify the numbers of people who identify as bisexual.
    - mercer 8y ago
      And then there's people who the label could be applied to, but spent much of their lives trying to conform to more socially acceptable ideas about sexuality.

IgorPartola 8y ago

I totally understand where you are coming from. Poly isn’t for everyone, casual love isn’t for everyone, and casual sex is most definitely not for everyone. Not engaging in those things is a valid choice, and if that is right for you, it is right for you. I will say that casual love != casual sex. You can experience casual love without any sex at all. You can form romantic relationships that do not involve sex. While I personally am not wired that way I have plenty of poly friends who are. The longest running podcast on the subject, Polyamory Weekly, to this day uses the slogan “it’s not all about the sex.” Casual sex for a lot of people is a much less satisfying experience than sex in a long term relationship. But to be fair, let’s acknowledge that loads of committed relationships also suffer in the bedroom, so it’s not all great there either. Ultimately it depends on you and your preferences/needs. And of course on the partners you select. Empirically I can say that I experience love towards a partner about 1/10 times or so. Though my sample size is not actually all that great because while poly, I am very very selective. This may be surprising but the reality is that poly doesn’t mean “screw everything with two legs.” It just means that if someone does interest you, you are free to explore that however you want, and your partners have the same freedom. Whether you choose to have one anchor partner who you share your home life with, or you do “solo poly” where you live alone and have multiple partners with whom you have no plans to ever progress on the escalator is 100% up to you. A couple of people I know actually identify as monogamous, while practicing Polyamory through their partner being poly. Not my cup of tea, but that seems right for them.