No, you can't use me for sex.

[denny]

...not because I wouldn't let you, but just because I don't see how it would be possible. I like sex.


A few times lately in various conversations I've heard girls use phrases like "He was just using me for sex" or "I don't want to be used for sex", and also things like "He needs to earn it first".

I don't understand this concept.

As far as I can tell, having sex with someone is a trade. They get some, you get some. Everyone's a winner.

If a girl wants to have sex with me, then I don't see how I can 'use' her for sex, and I don't see why I should have to 'earn' it either. If she wants sex with me, and she gets it, surely that's a fairly successful outcome for her? And if she doesn't want sex with me, then I wouldn't want to do it anyway... half-hearted shags are almost invariably crap.

Anyway, can anybody explain the fault in my reasoning? Maybe girls have a sekrit stockpile of sex that guys steal from them if they don't keep it carefully guarded at all times...

Do girls actually feel like they're doing blokes a huge one-way favour when they sleep with them? If so, why do they bother doing it?

I say 'girl' because I've yet to hear a guy complain about being used for sex. Odd that. Is this because men are sluts, or is it because society has given women some weird artificially inflated opinion of the value of their participation in the sex act, compared to the participation of the guy?

Or perhaps it's that women are less likely to enjoy sex? The problem I have is reconciling enjoying sex and 'feeling used' by it. I suppose if you hated sex but did it anyway (for what?) then it would make more sense.

I know gay guys don't seem to be worried about being used for sex. Is the concept in use in the gay scene for women, or is it strictly a heterosexual thing? Maybe it's part of the whole 'women as property' mess that our society is still trying to shake off?

I really don't understand this attitude to sex - and when it's aimed at me, I find it quite insulting. It takes two to tango... if you don't want me as much as I want you, then why are we even talking about it?

Comments

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I don't require that someone respects me as a human being before I'll have casual sex with them... why on Earth would you need that? It's casual sex... it's an enjoyable physical activity, not a life commitment or a friendship or similar. You don't demand that people respect you as a human being before you'll play [insert sporting activity here] with them, so why would you need that for a quick shag?

For non-casual sex obviously the rules are considerably different. Also BDSM tends to upset the boundaries because it's dangerous to engage in BDSM-flavoured sex with someone you don't have mutual trust with, which tends to mean that casual BDSM-sex lies more in the non-casual sex domain. In my humble and not very clearly stated opinion :)

[booklectica]

As I said above, there are no circumstances under which I don't want to be respected as a human being. :)

What I mean, mainly, is that I wouldn't want someone lying to me in order to get me into bed - it's insulting. And I don't want someone pretending to like me when they don't, they just fancy me. That's fairly normal, surely?

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

I don't require that someone respects me as a human being before I'll have casual sex with them

I do. Ditto for some sporting activities such as squash, actually. I'd guess most women do, simply because of the same point you make about BDSM - safety. Most women simply aren't strong enough to feel comfortable that they could remove the threat of a man in the room who tried to force them into something. This awareness of vulnerability can make a woman's casual sex less casual than a man's casual sex.

As others have said, there are women who expect any sex to be the start of a relationship, but also there are people who expect to at least have a conversation afterwards.
If it really were as simple as walking up to someone and suggesting a shag, I doubt the askee would object to the asker walking off afterwards, but usually the question happens in a context of friendly conversation that has happened for a few hours, possibly been friends for some time, and if the asker then decides not to talk to the person again after sex, feeling upset is understandable.
There are some men with a 'madonna/whore' feeling, that a woman who 'gave in' is no longer worthy, and the recipient of that behaviour would likely feel used.

[naath.livejournal.com]

I don't need people to Respect me and my personality blah blah blah but if they are going to treat me like an *object* then I will go *grrrr* and be angry and unhappy. I think maybe 'respect that I am a human being' makes more sense of what I would mean.

I generall the answer (I think) is that a lot of men go out casual sex hunting but *pretend* to be interested in more-than-sex and a lot of women think that sleeping with a guy is a good way to start a relationship so they both want the sex but for different reasons (regardless of whether the sex was good or not). I think that amongst some people sex is rather more carefully negotiated and the fact that it is just sex and nothing else more clearly understood by both parties whereas in the rest of the world these negotiations are omited but the outcomes assumed.

[booklectica]

I think maybe 'respect that I am a human being' makes more sense of what I would mean.

Yes, that's what I meant really. I don't want to be seen as just a body.*

*Except in certain clearly defined D/s situations. Which I wouldn't be doing with strangers.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

"I think maybe 'respect that I am a human being' makes more sense of what I would mean."

Yes, that's what I meant really.

Okay, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Your earlier phrasing seemed to want something quite a bit deeper than that, but I do tend to over analyse semantics instead of just picking up what people actually mean :)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Good comment, clarifies a lot of things that other people have been trying to say I think.

The thing about the 'sex for love, love for sex' imbalance being basically a failure to communicate/negotiate is exactly how I feel about it - it's not a fundamental problem of human nature, it's just that people don't explain what they want.

"Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups", as one of my ex's was fond of saying.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

not very clearly stated opinion

You're perfectly clear.

it's dangerous to engage in BDSM-flavoured sex with someone you don't have mutual trust with

It's dangerous to engage in any form of sex with someone who you can't trust to have been celibate since their last STI test. HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, &c are all dangers associated with sex.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I think a condom reduces that danger level to something which the vast majority of people are willing to accept even if they do stop to think about it carefully.

There's not really a condom equivalent to protect you from a fucked-up BDSM scene... safe-calls, I suppose, but they feel a bit 'after the fact' to me.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

I was going to say that a condom can't be ignored, whereas a malicious dom(me) might ignore safe calls, but then I remembered: what choice does a woman have if a guy she's with decides that he doesn't want to use a condom, and is willing to use force to back that decision?

So it is the same risk − at least for women, who are generally physically weaker than men − in terms of trust.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Is your general background level of distrust in men really so high that you see exactly the same level of risk to having vanilla sex with a stranger and doing a BDSM scene with one?

The worst possible scenario may be the same - rape, torture and murder, I suppose - but that's not the only possible outcome to either situation. Life is shades of grey.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

I percieve BDSM sex as being riskier only because it's easier to abuse someone who's tied up already. However, with regard to your statement, that's moot as the background distrust I feel towards men is too high these days for me to engage in either vanilla or BDSM sex with a stranger.

It's the worst possiblities − murder, battery, torture, rape (isn't that a subset of torture anyway?) − that I fear; I know already that most other possibilities are survivable, if somewhat unpleasant.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

BDSM sex as being riskier

That's physical risk BTW; I originally stated the same risk […] in terms of trust, which refers to breach of trust not physical risk, and which I stand by.

[antihope.livejournal.com]

Hëh.. now I am thinking...

damn, how did i make that e...... grrr.. evil norwegian keyboards..

but, anyhow. yeah.. i want some sorta respect for causal sex.. or at least something in return.

A jewish friend of mine was dating a guy, but he was more of a racists.. i have no idea what was going thru her mind.... I think she dumped him after getting sick of him calling her his "judenfrau" (which he got from a movie about a nazi guard and his relationship with a jewish woman)...

Maybe I am just a woman, but i really don't get turned on by people i can't respect... Tho, I did have fun being very abusive to a guy that i disliked... Heh, and he kept coming back for more.... no real respect there.. is that a fucked up bdsm scene in my bedroom?

but, no, we never had sex...

casual sex is fine provided you do it before you figure out someone is an asshole, or.. after you get something in return. i have (many years ago) expected money for sex.... so.. that was somewhat casual... maybe my brain still expects something in return...

Maybe it is because some guys never give a shit if the woman enjoys it.. and some girls get used to that kinda thing.. so they want *something* in return.. if not the O.. something more substantial... dunno

remind me not to rant at 1:30 am
*lick*

[adrasteah.livejournal.com]

Samoth pointed me at this thread.

While you might need someone to respect you to play sport with them, I assume you reserve certain parts of yourself for people you like and trust. I wouldn't tell a secret to some I didn't trust and I would only exhibit some behaviour towards people I really liked.

It's perfectly possible to have sex with someone without the intimacy that comes with giving of yourself 100%, but for me I just don't do it anymore because it's basically wanking, just using another person's body instead of something else and if I can't have the real thing, I'd rather go without. I also like to reserve an activity exclusively for partners so that it gives value to it. My boyfriend does not feel special when I shake his hand because I'll do that with anyone, for example. By reserving sex for him only it's a measure of esteem. Something he gets that he knows no-one else can have.

My life is immeasurably happier since I stopped having casual sex (and actually I was never someone who complained guys 'used' me for sex because I was just as likely to instigate for purely physical reasons) and the sex I have is infinitely better.

That said, with regard to original point of the post. It's no longer for me, but if people are absolutely honest with each other and themselves about what they expect and want then things should be mostly OK.

I say mostly because the reason women are more prone to this is a hormone called Oxytocin. It's released in huge amounts after a mother gives birth and it's what causes mothers and babies to bond. Obviously vital in evolutionary terms, but it's also released after orgasm in women and it's quite potent. It is designed to create a strong emotional bond with the person who caused it to be released and women need to be aware that their feelings towards someone after sex are mostly a chemical trick.