On Sex, and Love, and Being ‘Casual’

In the liberal wing of the Religious Society of Friends, we’re pretty liberal about sex (liberal meaning slightly different things in those two cases, so not automatically following one from the other). We aren’t down on premarital sex, we’re fine with same-sex relationships and sex, and I even perceive a growing acceptance of, if not always support for, various forms of ethical non-monogamy (polyamory and suchlike). While we might not be overly judgemental of casual sex, though, I generally sense a certain disapproval, a lack of acceptance of it. I think that is driven by the right motives, there are good reasons that flow from Love for that attitude, but still I think the conclusion is slightly wrong.

On Sexuality

People get hung up a lot on sexuality. What does it mean? Is it an abstract element of our being, or does it describe what we are attracted to, what interests us sexually? The word is used for both. When someone says that people should celebrate or nurture their sexuality, they don't always mean their sexual orientation – and some people object to the word orientation there, for a range of reasons.

For now, I am using the word sexuality to mean all of that, and perhaps more. It is that part of us that desires that sort of physical intimacy. It is about the sort of intimacy we desire. It is what we like to do, and the sort of person we like to do it with. It is even involved in things we do entirely on our own. It is what we do, it is what we want, it is what we dream of.

Judging Acts of Love

The “physical act of love”, howsoever it manifests and between whoever engages in it, should be judged on only 4 things:

• Does it flow from open honesty and common interest?
• Is it freely chosen by those involved, and mutually consented to, with all capable of true consent?
• Does it improve the well-being of all involved, providing a positive experience – or at least an honest attempt at one?
• Does it promote love?