So the question on the table was: "can you have unattached sex?". The details included the idea that it would be a consistent scenario with an individual - therefore not a one-nighter - and that the purpose would be to get laid without the hassle of romanticism. The verdict was that MAYBE it could be done, but it's complicated.
But is it really so complicated? An odd question coming from me, who tried valiantly to do the fuck-friend thing with disastrous consequences (the eventual friendship excluded). But I'm wondering now, a little bit older, a bit more cynical, and long-time unattached if the situation might not be a good one. The challenge is really finding the other person.
Usually these situations are called "flings" and they occur randomly in your life when you're on vacation. The time horizon is a key factor to the the unattached sex "relationship" because it precludes thoughts of a future. The idea being that you can enjoy someone's company for a specific period of time and that's the end of it. But can you manufacture this scenario? Can you find a willing partner, set your deadline and get the goods without having to go away? The odds tend to favour "no" as a response.
But that seems a little short-sighted to me. Wouldn't it be better to have an established single partner for a period of time then dealing with the stress of multiple moments to fill the the void? I think its called "taking a lover". So if you could find a decent attractive person with whom you share a bit of chemistry - couldn't you lay this option on the table? The answer to that is still open for debate. And the discussion of this topic at tonight's wings night seems to suggest that someone will always get hurt in this type of situation so its best not to try. But wouldn't it be nice if you could get it worked out right?
No comments:
Post a Comment