Towards a Healthier Definition of "Casual"

"Meaningless", "impersonal", "emotionless", "numb", "detached", "disinterested", "faceless", "anonymous", "exploitative", "one-sided", "androcentric", "mechanical", "perfunctory", "distant", "loveless", "banal", "insipid", "meh", "indifferent", "dishonest", "cruel", "toxic", "degrading", "objectifying", and ultimately, "oxymoronic".  What sort of questionable adjectives seem to come to mind when you hear the word "casual", as in "casual sex", "casual dating", or "casual hookup"?  As if those adjectives (especially the first three or four) are somehow literally implicit in the word itself?

And yet, NONE of these words actually are inherently implicit in the word "casual" at all, rather, they are all shoehorned into the word (and by extension, the deed as well) to varying degrees by society, and especially by patriarchy, ultimately to everyone's detriment (but especially for Women).  In contrast, it is entirely possible for a person of any gender to engage in casual sex, dating, and "hookups" without any of the above adjectives at all (except perhaps when "detached" is used strictly in the spiritual or spiritual-adjacent sense of the word, rather than in the sociopathic or depersonalized sense).  Conversely, it is also (unfortunately) possible for any and all of the above adjectives (except perhaps "anonymous") to also be present to varying degrees in many ostensibly "committed" relationships as well.

Thus, we urgently need to more clearly delineate a much healthier definition of the word "casual" in that regard.  To that end, I believe the very best such definition of "casual" (as well as the closely related term, "no strings attached") is as follows:

"No expectations of commitment or exclusivity, and no obligations beyond mutual pleasure and basic human decency".

That's it.  And nothing else shoehorned into it OR precluded from it, period.  It simply is what it is.  And whatever act in question thus can carry as much or as little meaning or weight as each participant chooses to ascribe to it for themselves.

And crucially, this definition automatically precludes any sort of cruelty or one-sidedness. Or at least, any deliberate or gratuitous cruelty, including "cruel to be kind" whenever it becomes an affront to basic human decency.  "Casual" is thus NOT a license to treat sex as a sort of "moral vacuum" and wantonly disregard general ethics, human decency, dignity, rights, agency, or personal boundaries of anyone.  And furthermore, if the pleasure is not mutual, what's the point of it really?  While it is indeed a bit too utopian to say that "no one gets hurt", as simply due to human nature, no one can ever really guarantee that for anyone, it is nonetheless protopian to note that this definition goes a long way towards greatly reducing that adverse potential.

And while I am utterly ineffective when it comes to channeling the deceased, I would nonetheless hazard an educated guess that the late, great Guru Rasa Von Werder would thus be smiling down from Heaven in agreement with my definition 😊

Let the planetary healing begin!