Here’s the question: Does sex always have to be meaningful and if it does, why? See, I was just editing my blog entitled, “Well, Duh…!” which was about women complaining about how dudes always wanting to fuck them was getting on their last good nerves and how they’re not being appreciated in other ways and as I made some corrections, I got to thinking about how most people are loathe to have sex that doesn’t “mean” something or, simply, they’re not keen about having casual sex or doing it just because they feel the need to get laid.
You see and hear more and more people stating that in order for them to have sex with someone, they have to “be into them” or someone has to be into them before any sex can jump off. I still see instances of people – mostly women, I’m afraid – who insist that while they do, in fact, love getting laid, they need it to mean something to them and I’ve always guess that this means that they’ll only have sex with someone they love and, as such, have an investment with the person looking to pack their stuff.
And, yes, I got to wondering about this and my mind almost immediately went back to what I was told when I was old enough to understand it, that being, you should only have sex with someone you love… and the implied, unspoken thing is that having sex while in love has more “meaning” than sex that happens without love being in the picture at all. I think that because, culturally, we’ve enacted a great deal of negativity regarding casual sex – sex that happens outside of wedlock (or some other relationship state), a lot of us are compelled to believe that NSA sex doesn’t “mean” anything; it has no material value, is thought to be harmful and a few other things and I did think back to the religious admonishment about fornication and how sinful it is just to do it simply because it can be done.
And, yes, I can easily admit that I enjoy sex when it “means” something… but I’m not sure I could describe what “meaningful” sex is because, um, I also enjoy sex when it has no meaning other than to scratch that very annoying itch. I am, of course, aware that since we have self-esteem/respect and are acutely aware of our personal worth and value, we are loath to throw down with someone who, in essence, doesn’t give a fuck about us or otherwise have no real investment in us because we’re just a means to an end… but isn’t this also true when the sex “means” something? If you care to examine it closely, wouldn’t you see and/or realize that even when the sex “means”something, you’re still a part of that means to that desired end?
I asked a woman once what she meant when she said, “If I’m gonna fuck you, it has to mean something!” – and it didn’t surprise me that she couldn’t really answer the question. And, yes, we did fuck (oh, man, did we ever!) but I was still wondering what it meant when one says that sex is doable if it has meaning. Like I confessed, I’m on board with this… but I’ll be damned if I can tell you what the hell that means, well, and have it make sense. Again, I think we’ve been so deeply conditioned not to give up our bodies unless there’s some… investment in play, like being into each other, being in love with each other, and being bound by a relationship. Even though NSA is quite popular, well, many people will tell you right off the bat that while they’re fans of NSA sex, they wouldn’t just fuck anyone even though they could, in fact, do just that.
Enter that need for some kind of attraction or that often misunderstood concept of chemistry or that “click” that tells us that not only should we let the other person into our underwear, the sooner we do it, the better it’ll be for us. My God… I’ve heard and seen so many people speak on this and, if I were to sum it all up into a high-level kind of thing, the lack of attraction/chemistry doesn’t lend itself to “meaningful” sex. Many people insist that if there’s no attraction or chemistry, there will be no sex… even though every fiber of their being is screaming at them to get laid or suffer some uncomfortable consequences, oh, like, guys passing up a chance to fuck a willing woman and winding up with a very painful case of blue balls. I’ve wondered – and not for the first time – if attraction/chemistry is really necessary in order for (a) sex to happen and (b) for the sex to be satisfying and mostly because I have, in my time, have had sex with people I’ve been attracted to and/or got hit with the power of chemistry… and the sex, while good, seemed to lack any real “meaning” other than making some orgasms happen. Likewise, I have had sex with people who I haven’t been attracted to or have felt any chemistry for… and it’s been just as good (and sometimes better)… but where’s the “meaning” here?
Or are we “collectively” saying that lust, which conveys its own meaning, isn’t valid or doesn’t serve the purpose to provide “meaning” to having sex? No, it’s isn’t as if I really don’t know what the deal is about this because I do… but, as the byline for my blog says, this is about what’s in my head and, well, this happened to be in my head when I decided to write all of this. So, to continue, I’m wondering how many times a person has been attracted to someone and decided to have sex with that person based on that attraction… and then, after it’s all said and done, found themselves wishing that they hadn’t? Does this – or could this – imply that the sex had no “meaning” to it other than being a waste of time, energy and some bodily fluids?
Is “meaningful” sex really a trust issue? Yep, we do tend not to have sex with someone we feel or believe can’t be trusted but even if we deem them to be trustworthy – and whatever the hell that might mean to an individual – does that trust lend itself to the sex being “meaningful?” Does getting laid have to have some sort of meaning as a matter of course… or is this merely a social construct and one that, essentially, says that you should only have sex with someone you love or deeply care about and if you don’t care or love the object of your lust, well, the sex won’t mean shit?
Yep, sometimes, I am just amazed at what will pop into my head at any given moment. Does being in love assume that the sex has meaning? Does attraction lend itself to whatever “meaningful” sex is? Does being in a relationship provide this “meaning” that we all seem to require? Or is it “simply” because we are told that unless certain things line up in a certain way, any sex we might have outside of these conditions lacks meaning and value? Like I said, I can remember my parents telling me to (a) keep my dick in my pants (not exactly in those words) and (b) that I should never have sex with anyone I didn’t care about or love because if I did, well, I would most certainly regret it.
I subsequently learned that I could, in fact, find myself regretting it even when those conditions were met and, yep, even those conditions weren’t even in the picture, uh-huh, I’ve had some pretty good (and damned good) sex with people I didn’t care about or love or even wanted to be in a relationship with. So I wonder if this “sex has to mean something” this is a self-defense mechanism we all create for ourselves so that we can protect, as best we can, our sense of self-worth and our self-esteem? Oh, can I mention that both of these things can be damaged and utterly destroyed even when the sex does has “meaning” to it… or is supposed to have “meaning?”
Aight, time for me to end this and find something else to get out of my head…