Whom are You bullshitting???

Reading this post by our esteemed Little Miss Drinkalittle about casual sex at first made me smile, but it also made me think. The term 'casual sex' is fundamentally an oxymoron, much as 'jumbo shrimp' and 'military intelligence'.Before I really get rolling, I should state at the outset that I grew up in a south indian state often referred to as the buckle of the orthodox Belt. In some way I am at least a 'cultural' Hindu; in the sedimentary layers that make up my psyche, you would undoubtedly find archaeological evidence of the influence of both Bhagvadgita and the distinctly puritanical mores of South Indian Orthodoxism. It is impossible to escape one's past, and my past was surrounded by these passive influences. My family was particularly religious, however. We did go to temples, while the idols occupied a nice place in our home that my dad religiously cleaned prayed there everyday.
All that said, I would make the case that anyone who believes that they can have casual sex -- sex without consequence or meaning beyond the moment -- is fooling themselves. Sex, all sex, carries consequence inherent in the act.This is so for one rather simple (or possibly simplified) reason: Sex is the most physically intimate act one can commit with others. The idea of 'casual sex' is fatally flawed because one cannot be both intimate with and indifferent to another human being. I'm not being semantic here. I mean that literally. All acts of intimacy, be they sincere or feigned, carry with them a corresponding emotional charge. It's a simple case of cause and effect. One cannot have an intimate encounter without intimacy, like it or not.Why? Because sex is an implicit acceptance of vulnerability. To have another person see us naked is to have them see us without any of our physical camouflage or cover. Our physical flaws are on display. This is a powerful act of faith (or possibly a reckless gamble). We risk damage to our sense of self-worth by rendering ourselves physically vulnerable to someone who falls, in terms of 'casual sex', more or less into the category of stranger. Imagine the short path to pain inherent in a laugh, or a shudder, and you'll see what I mean. The gamble is this: you risk damage to your own sense of self-worth in hopes of bolstering that same sense of self-worth in the form of the reflected light of desire in another's expression, their action, their... satisfaction. this may be a more male-centered view of sex, but I think it can apply to women as well.So, if sex is an acceptance of vulnerability, both physical and psychological, it seems to me that to consider sex of any sort as 'casual' is willfully self-delusional. Anyone that merits that amount of self-confidence must have the body of Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie, and the centeredness of the Dalai Lama. There may well be people out there that fit the description. If so, they should be ritually stoned for the greater good of humanity.For the rest of us mortals, I think it's important to recognize that the concept of 'casual' sex carries with it the very real danger of objectifying a 'casual' sex partner. By performing the mental acrobatics necessary to turn a person into a thing, an object, two things happen: The first is that the risk of their dissatisfaction or disapproval becomes a non-issue. Does your car's opinion of you matter? Would you even care if it had an opinion? Of course not. It's there to perform a function, nothing more. In objectifying a sex partner, the burden shifts to them. Did they perform their function adequately or not? Your own faults and their perception of them become immaterial.The second thing that happens, as a consequence of the first, is that the degradation of another soul carries with it an equal and opposite reaction. By objectifying others, we in a very real sense objectify ourselves, whether we realize it or not.And therein lies the danger of 'casual' sex. It is self-delusional and ultimately self-degrading. It carries with it the seeds of our own diminishment.#From the above, you might believe that I am against sexual relations with anyone other than someone you are in a committed relationship with. I'm not, really. The human heart makes its own demands, and I am not one to judge. As long as you recognize that the other person is a flesh and blood human being with thoughts, emotions, faults, foibles, a history and a future, and the urge to get nekkid is mutual, and you or they are not otherwise spoken for, then by all means get intimate. Intimacy carries with it its own truth, and we can all use a little more truth in our lives.But intimacy always leaves a mark. Will it be a mark you are likely to look fondly on? Or will it bea mark that you try to cover over later with other, better experiences?