Do not raise your eyebrows seeing the title of this piece. We are not here to discuss something sleazy or titillate anyone, as the title may suggest. Sex is a fundamental thing of life which we can’t ignore and I personally believe that it is a subject by itself. This is one phenomenon about which no matter how much we discuss, there’s always scope to know more about it.
This write-up is basically based on a conversation between a guy and a girl which I happened to over hear. Present day youth are quite open about sex, as perhaps we all know, be it in doing it or in discussing about the same. While a lot of crap is also being discussed, this was one conversation which I found very interesting and informative.
The discussion revolved around the concept of ‘sex friends’ in India India
This is what the girl had to say: ‘Sex friends’ is just another convenient term invented by people who are too snappy to get into even in a live-in relationship. Earlier, a live-in was used to be considered as perhaps the most experimental form of same/hetero-sex relationship. But now it's passé it seems. Sex friendship is so much in these days. But it's nothing but a newer avatar of self-deceiving. What sort of message these people are sending out - that they can't afford to maintain/merely get into a relationship, that they have no partner, that they are not the least compatible to have partners with whom they can continue, and of course, they are not even capable of forming something as basic as friendship? These are incompetent people who just can't afford to spend time, energy, feelings, affection, understanding (forger about respect), and even money (why a 'sex friend' for God's sake, they can very well make do with a hooker who will charge them per hour). But no, they are saving money, image (more importantly), plus coming up with something as hollow a term as 'sex friends' to probably impress people like us who might go wow upon their boho-liberal, ultra open-minded attitude towards sex, physicality, relationship, and thus, breaking away from the bondage of 'relationships' and attempting to bring about some sort of 'rebel' infusion. Remember the 1960s’ hippie culture, when an entire generation was brought up on values involving liberty, anti-fascism (the bigger political perspective), and therefore, denouncing and opposing every social norm and conduct, and of course promoting free sex, and branding themselves as path-breakers of some sort of social evolution.
This is nothing but just a neo-hippie-ism copying their free sex concept without their originality and broader humanitarian aspect. It’s bad sex, no soul! It is just a passing phase. People will get over with it soon and find something new to chew on!
The guy had something to say: Do you think 'soul' exists in present day relationships? Most young people today believe that there is hardly any soul in present day relationships. These days most young couples start getting physical after a couple of meetings. In many cases they part ways and move on to another partner. How different are they from sex friends? Modern couples do not seem to have time for a full fledged relationship, because they are hard pressed for time. So they want to ‘feel’ it straightaway.
Girl’s reaction: It is very true that everyone's running against time, but this is very silly when people have time to update Facebook every second, grow their trees on Farmville, visit pubs and malls, and do hundreds of other things except that they don’t have time for relationship - that’s just an excuse, and a very lame one! And what is this "feel" thing?! If it's just about that, they can even "feel" (read 'touch') in a crowded bus as well (sex is a very primordial thing, a very basic physical need, so they can urge their sex drive by any other means), they don’t need to do it under the pretext of 'sex friendship'. But this may be the opinion of one segment of the Indian youth; there’s another young India
Sex and relationship are two different things - if they happen together, nothing like it, but sex doesn’t necessarily require the facade of a relationship, they can simply call it 'casual sex'. Two people of opposite sex, if they are attracted to each other and have sex, they are not necessarily "couples". So, there’s a lot of confusion as to how to define the relationship. Already, the definition/horizon of the concept of 'friends' has been stretched so far that now it includes everyone - friends (from school, college), colleagues, acquaintances, people on your social network circles (whose real name you may not know, neither about how they look like), boyfriend, girlfriend, ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend, fiancés, spouses, etc. Now we don’t want sex partners to be included in this list, it’s overwhelming/intimidating already!
Therefore, "sex friends" is just another pathetic attempt to look/sound "cool" by this generation. If there's no heart, no soul, sex gets reduced merely to the level of a bodily act.
The guy had a query: You said that 'sex doesn’t necessarily require the facade of a relationship, they can call it simply 'casual sex'. So does that mean that you think that 'casual sex' is ok?
Girl: We don't intend to be judgmental on this, so I’m not looking at it from an ethical-moral perspective. So, whether it's 'ok' or not is the question. What is important is one’s belief. After all, we do what we believe in, and here we are talking about such a fundamental thing as sex, so if one believes in practicing it casually, its fine as long as one can claim that he/she's not wrecking havoc on the other's emotional expectations and no one is in the dark about the intentions and consequences of such an involvement.
