Casual sex does not cause emotional problems
By Jimmy Downs
Young adults who conduct casual sex are no more likely than their counterparts who only have relationship with their committed partners to experience psychological problems, according to a new study.
University of Minnesota researchers surveyed 737 females and 574 males at an average age of 20.5 years for their sexual behaviors and found that their casual relationship had nothing to do with emotion well-being.
Fifty five percent of the sexually active participants reported their past sexual partner were exclusive dating partners, 25 percent had their last sex with fiancé, spouse or life partner and 12 percent said they had last encounter with a close but no exclusive partner and 8 percent said they had romantic activity with a casual acquaintance.
Overall, males were more than twice as likely as females to have their last sexual activity with a casual acquaintance or a close but not exclusive partner.
And the researchers found that the mental well-beings of the participants who had a casual partner or a committed partner were not different, meaning that casual romantic relationship did not cause extra emotional damage to young people.
Those who want to empower their sexual performance, at least men may consider following a diet that provides enough nutrients they need for their systems no matter their partners are exclusive or not.
Some of the good-for-men foods include fish like salmon, seafood like shrimp and oysters, vitamin C, raw garlic, arginine supplements or peanuts, and strawberries, according to an article published on foodconsumer.org early.



del.icio.us
Digg
A casual relationship is just that, casual and short-term. A committed relationship is more satisfying, but the potential for emotional damage when it fails is far greater.
The simplistic moralists should come back when they are mature enough to handle the subject. This is a complex issue. Choosing a life-partner, or not, is probably the most important decision you will ever make in your life. Naive generalisations don't help.
I agree with the premise, but they butchered it with this piece of crap. I want to disagree with them just on principle.
Post your comment