Talk:Casual dating

Wikifying

I just went ahead and "wiki-fied" some sections in your article. Everything looks good, but maybe you could go in and find more things to "wikify" to make your article even stronger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkonop (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The one area where I can see you can add something to make it better is under the college casual relationships heading. If you can find hard facts to add into this paragraph it would make your article much stronger. You have some really good points, but just need to back them up with more hard facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkonop (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Near-Sexual?

I don't agree with the choice of words "near-sexual". There is no hierarchy of sexual behaviour. Is foreplay less sexual then penetration? Is anal penetration less sexual then masturbation? Is sex among people of the same sex less sexual then sex among people of different sexes? (Unsigned commenter)

As to the first point, there are differences in sexual behavior and there are different levels, and I disagree: I do believe there is a hierarchy of sexual behavior. Sexuality is what's in people's heads and therefore different people take all the different Is foreplay less sexual then penetration? Absolutely; most of us are aware, either directly or through what we've seen in movies and such, about how many girls were willing to get into heavy petting and such, but would not agree to sexual intercourse. Anyone watched the movie Animal House, where a girl was giving her steady date a hand job in the front seat of a car, but wouldn't have sex with him. Of course now, that sort of attitude is much rarer than it was when being (at least thought of as) easy was considered a bad thing. Even today, many young women will perform oral sex on a man, or even permit anal sex while declining intercourse, so that they can remain "technical virgins"; see the article. This has been reported even in newspaper stories, so it's not something new. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is sex among people of the same sex less sexual then sex among people of different sexes? No, I think it is considered more sexual or at least, of a different category than sex between a man and a woman. Otherwise, why are so many of the (so-called) religious right so upset over involvments among gays and lesbians and have such horrid fears over gay marriage? Apparently they think the interactions between men and men, and women and women, are different or of a different character than the interactions between men and women. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this article and the article on sexualized friendship are very low quality, though I don't have enough knowledge to correct that. (Unsigned commenter)

I have merged the content from sexualized friendship into this article and made that a redirect to this one. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This is so not NPOV.. >.<

Seem good enough. It lists objections to the style of relationship, plus critisism of those objections. JeffBurdges 15:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Criticisms section is not NPOV. I don't have much of a problem with anything before that section, though. (except for the last bit, which I just fixed up)

I'm going to tag the criticisms section as not being NPOV. - James Foster 09:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if neutrality is the issue here, but rather objectivity. There is hardly any "hard", viz "real", information here, except maybe the references to Alanis Morissette and "Sex and the City", which are themselves not very substantial. Overall this constitutes a prime example of Wikipedia at its worst. --Maikel 13:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Article seems NPOV enough as long as the NPR interview backs up its claims. - JeffBurdges 13:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Confused definitions

Now, granted, my native language is not english, and therefore I can't be certain how each of these terms is used in English-speaking culture -- however it has seemed to me that my english-speaking friends have used the following three terms to denote different things:

• friends with benefits: two preexisting friends start having sex together, however their friendship remains the predominant part of their relationship. They generally stop having sex with each other, once one of them forms a romantic attachment to a third person; but their friendship will (theoretically atleast) not be affected.
• fuckbuddies: two acquaintance who are usually *not* intellectual friends have formed a semi-formal pact to have sex with one another for purposes of pleasure/stress release/etc. Friendly non-sexual activities generally don't occur, nor does "friendship" exist in any meaningful level : the relationship between them is almost entirely physical.
• casual relationship: A sexual relationship that unlike the previous two relationships may evolve to a true romantic connection, but the two parties take this possibility in a "casual" manner, not worrying about it overmuch, nor waiting for romantic commitment before proceeding to sexual relationships.

The three things seem to me to be differentiated enough that placing them all under the same article and treating them like synonyms seems misleading. But as I said, I can't be entirely certain that the definitions above are truly the ones commonly in use -- it simply seems to me that they are the meanings commonly used by my english-speaking friends when talking about such. Aris Katsaris 12:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

what the fuck?

"Friends with benefits" was popularized by some crappy-arse sitcom? This article has several lines like this that are just laughable, it could use a good working-over Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Harsh but true ?

On the subject of being 'fuckbuddies' for the over 13's this clearly relates to a singular country and not to the further world. The expression is pretty clear, but i must object to it being a teenage observation. As we get older and more set in our ways, delivered the children through education, been divorced, working the long hours (which for many of us of the over 40-50's is the sanctuary of 'later' life) this is a far more benefitting scenario than running headlong into a new relationship that might or might not turn your life to heaven, or upside-down again. Being with another person when both need it is a far more rewarding experience than satisfying a married partner at their whims. As both know well that this is not an everlasting solution, one is considerably more adept at working on the mutual satisfaction aspect that just a singular satisfaction. Yours truly. Svein

   Um, what?

Uh-ok?

"Others believe that casual relationships of this sort are unrealistic because strong emotions will inevitably come into play. Naturally this belief is typically not shared by those who participate in such relationships."

I don't know about this. Is there anyway to back up that those who participate in these relationships deny that feelings inevitably arise(or at leat are likely?) Most people I know say they'll deal with that issue when it comes.

I'm of the view it is unlikely to occur to me, however for the females in the world I've come across I'm not so sure... they are after all in my opinion more emotional creatures than myself.

Casual relationship = fuck buddies?

Summat is wrong on this page, these are two very different things. JayKeaton 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up!!

This is a badly written article. I'm going to try and clean it up as much as I can because it's irritatingly crappy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Fuck Buddies

So is the conclusion that fuck buddies fall under casual relationship or not? And if not, does Fuck Buddy merit it's own page, as a cultural occurance that does exist within our society?

I was recently called a vandal for inclusion of this phrase within the article, by the way. Donthaveaspaz 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on your user page, it was a mistake.

However, I didn't think that this term passed WP:Profanity, as its inclusion in the article didn't seem necessary. Anyone else care to have a say? JayKeaton above seems to think the term is misused. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see this issue has been discussed quite a bit before on this talk page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How to?

The article could do with a "how to get a chick to fall for this" section.

Sadly this only works for gay males :):):) Maybe ask at the reference desk? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV / rework article / cleanup

Somewhere along the line, some horrible NPOV issues have crept in. Statements like this gem:

"Some people prefer the term "Lovers Without Commitment", as it excuses the action by spinning lovemaking as more than a mere benefit...."

POV aside, this article needs some serious cleanup. I've tagged it as such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuck-Buddies

I believe the term "fuck-buddies" is a legitimate term to describe a type of casual relationship. Occasionally this term is edited out of the article as vandalism. I think it deserves to stay. Any thoughts?Alex LaPointetalk 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more slang than anything. LOLERSKATES

Popularized in Sex and the City vs. associated with early teenagers

Isn't this kind of contradicting? The women of Sex and the City was were like 33-48 years old (age of the youngest actress at the beginning of the show - age of the oldest actress and the end of the show). And they showed this behavior is not unknown, not to say even standard, for middle class single New Yorkers. -Lwc4life 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

SATC couldn't "show" any behaviour as being known or unknown by anyone, since it's a work of fiction, not documentary. It certainly portrayed it as common behaviour, but the mere fact of the portrayal can't be taken as evidence for the accuracy of that portrayal. Similarly, there's no contradiction between the age of the actresses in SATC and the idea that the show popularised this behaviour amongst young teens--all that would have had to happen would be for young teens to watch SATC, see the depiction of the behaviour, and start emulating it. Binabik80 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Worst Article I've Ever Seen

This article is truly awful at the moment. I certainly couldn't do any better but I really hope someone can.... 217.42.192.46 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

blah i agree. we need an expert or something. someone tag this article as in need of expert help -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.182.51 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY. This is total shit. And a perfect example of why all subjects should not be treated in encyclopedia form.

Weaselwords?

A couple of places in the article are tagged . If all the weasels were tagged the article would be about 10% longer. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to explain the current redirect?

Shouldn't fwb redirect to "Fly-by-wire" (digital control for aircraft steering)? That's certainly more important than fucking the girl next door and the girl next-next door the day after?

Otherwise, FWB is the registered name of Feinwerkbau, a german maker of professional sporting air rifles. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, is "fwb" an accepted acronym for fly-by-wire? Because I would have expected "fbw" to be more likely. Binabik80 (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Retitle or rewrite

The current title of the article, "Casual relationship", goes too far in redefining a phrase based on current slang. It's essentially the same as creating an article called "Blow" that talks about cocaine. Granted this is a very common euphemism for cocaine but it is not the primary way the term is used. Similarly, while "casual relationship" is commonly used by many people to mean the same thing as "friends with benefits", this is not universal nor is it really the most commonly understood meaning. "Casual relationship" traditionally, and still more commonly, refers to a romantic relationship where two people are not exclusive and are attempting to avoid becoming too serious. Often such relationships deliberately avoid sex precisely because the relationship is intended to avoid becoming too serious. For the term "friends with benefits", however, sex is actually a defining characteristic of the relationship.

So there are two options:

• Generalize this article to encompass all of these meanings and discuss the different facets. In other words, don't limit the discussion to "friends with benefits" as it does now.
• Split this into two articles.

- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This page looks really good, the FWB section could use some reconstruction. All the information is there but the set up is in sentences rather than paragraphs. The subject is really interesting and I can't wait to read the end result. --Jcpasiec (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put a banner to recommend splitting this article. For reference, About.com provides a nice discussion of the two meanings and how they differ:

• Friends with Benefits
• Casual dating

- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to reorganize this article to specifically focus on casual dating. A lot of info specifically about friends with benefits will be moved to a friends with benefits article. Mangokeylime (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Commented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The move from Casual relationship to Casual sexual relationship

Regarding this move, I don't understand it...considering that this article is currently about a casual relationship that may or may not include sexual activity; this is why Casual dating redirected to Casual relationship. With this move, Casual dating needs a more accurate redirect and this article needs even more fixing up than it did before. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article is entirely about casual sexual relationships, as is obvious from reading it. There is no need for an article about "Casual relationships" which have no sexual element. What would it cover, people's relationships with their podiatrists? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in your deduction that I have not yet read this article in its entirety. I was going by the lead, which stated (and still mostly states): "A casual relationship, or casual dating, is a physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have a sexual relationship or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting the extra commitments of a more formal romantic relationship." The article includes some non-sexual aspects, but is certainly mostly about sexual activity. Still, with the rename, I feel that some type of merge between it and the Casual sex article should probably be considered. I know that casual sex doesn't always come with an "actual relationship," but even a one-night stand (that page is currently blanked with a note, by the way) can be argued as having been a sexual relationship. I'm certain that there are going to be merge attempts regarding that article and this one, especially considering that this article already has a section on casual sex. We might as well address that now. And if one wants to argue distinctions on that, I point out that it's not like casual dating necessarily means sexual activity is involved...and yet it currently redirects to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To me, "casual dating" implies no strong likelihood of sex; have I been doing it wrong? —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't about "casual dating". but "casual relationship" The expression "casual relationship" pretty much cover every possible relationship between people, from client and package delivery person to parking lot attendant and car driver. The only aspect which makes the "relationships" unique is whether there is a sexual element or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tamfang: Yes, you have been doing it wrong. Everyone is getting much more sex tban you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm not arguing against you on the expression "casual relationship" or what this article mostly covers. In fact, I've previously thought similarly about this article restricting the expression the way it did. Above, I've made different arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with Beyond My Ken's argument that casual relationship covers every possible relationship between people. Young people, in fact most people exploring relationships, use a lot of metaphors - dating does not cover every possible instance of writing something in a diary, going out with is not the opposite of staying in with, hooking up has nothing to do with crochet, etc. Casual relationship is a phrase whose meaning is not to be taken literally. On the other hand, is it appropriate to have Wikipedia articles about euphemisms and metaphors? This is not 'Urban Dictionary'. WP:TITLE says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." The use and meaning of these euphemisms is not consistent across the English-speaking world - socio-sexual norms in India, parts of Africa, the UK, Canada and Australia differ from those in the US, and indeed the US has a variety of its own. It appears from the above that there may be a slew of these articles - some that are presently redirects, and others that are not - Casual dating, Casual relationship, Casual sex, One-night stand, Dating, and now Casual sexual relationship. I know it's harder work, but I suggest we gather together here a definitive list of the related articles, review the range of scholarly material that actually exists across them, and then plan a small number of unambiguous WP:COMMONNAMEs that will allow us to cover all the ground, exactly once, in a consistent way; leaving the rest as redirects. --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points/suggestions, Nigel. Thanks for weighing in on this at my request. As for euphemism, I'm not sure that I would, for example, describe dating as an euphemism...though there are societies that use different terms for that. Further, I don't think that the term courtship, which is more associated with the time period of a couple's life before engagement and marriage than the term dating is, is used much these days. Flyer22 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference 12 does not say what it is cited for

Hate to make my first post to Wikipedia be all complaining and not offering solutions but...

Reference 12 "What's love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules, love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships" does not say any of the things that it is cited for in the "Relationship maintenance and student concerns" Section. I just read the article. This sections feels like someone had some ideas about power imbalances in these relationships, and just cited some random source.

This article talks about rules in friends with benefits relationships, and perceived social support, and attitudes towards love and their influence on outcomes of those relationships.

I propose that someone delete this section or find references to substantiate those claims. I suppose it could be me if I come back to this page at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningchicago (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The citation is used at 14 places in the article. Are you saying that it supports none of the statements its connected to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Move title to Casual dating?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the article to Casual dating, per the discussion below. Content considerations are not within the purview of a WP:RM close, so discussion should continue about any changes to scope that are deemed necessary. Dekimasuよ! 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Casual sexual relationship → Casual dating – Like I stated stated above, Beyond My Ken moved the article from Casual relationship to Casual sexual relationship in 2013, and, while I now understand why he did that, I feel that the title "casual sexual relationship" is too narrow for this article (especially considering what the article can be expanded with) and too redundant to the Casual sex title. The terms casual sex and casual sexual relationship are not usually distinguished in the literature; in the literature, they usually mean the same thing. And by "literature," I mean WP:Reliable sources concerning sexual activity. For example, this International Handbook of Adolescent Pregnancy: Medical, Psychosocial, and Public Health Responses 2014 source from Springer Science & Business Media, page 510, states, "Casual sex is a type of sexual relationship between new acquaintances or mere friends. Casual sex means that if two people feel like having sex, then they just do it without emotional strings attached and with no money involved. " And like I stated above, I know that casual sex doesn't always come with an "actual relationship," but even a one-night stand can be argued as having been a sexual relationship. I also point out that it's not like casual dating necessarily means sexual activity is involved...and yet that term (casual dating) currently redirects to the Casual sexual relationship article. The terms casual dating and casual sex are distinguished in the literature. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'd personally prefer Casual relationship as per WP:UCRN. When you meet people in a friendship/buddy relationship it isn't always that the first thing that is presented is the sex. Dating is a not quite so commonly used term which has a more specific meaning. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose proposed title. While I can accept that there are a lot of articles clustered around a related series of concepts, and that there seems to be some confusion as to the boundaries of the articles as currently titled, I do not think 'casual dating' is a good article title. If one or more of the present cluster of articles are to be renamed, then I think it is important that the new names are very clear and very different. Dating is a metaphor at best and more likely a euphemism. The word is related to dates in the calendar and refers literally to setting a time and place when and where to meet in the future. Doing this has nothing necessarily to do with romance or sex. To link it so strongly to sex and sexual relationships is very much an Americanism, I think. In other branches of English 'to make a date' or asking 'do we have a date?' are used every day in business and other social contexts. It is true that the transitive verb 'to be dating someone' is fairly clear, but I think that this clarity is only due to the number of American films and TV programs I have watched. In any actual literal sense, it still looks to my non-US eyes like an almost nonsensical series of words. I'm all for clarifying article titles, but I'm dead against naming articles with prudish 1950s US-centric euphemisms. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that final sentence - it sounds stronger than I really mean :-) ) --Nigelj (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, GregKaye and Nigelj (pinged you, GregKaye, via WP:Echo because Nigelj already has the Casual sexual relationship article WP:Watchlisted), something needs to be done about the current title, either a rename or a WP:Merge with the Casual sex article...per what I stated above. Though, with a WP:Merge, I don't know where we would then redirect Casual dating...unless we redirect it to the Dating article. It should probably go ahead and be redirected there. Wikipedia is currently acting as though casual sex and casual sexual relationship are two different things. To the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, they are not. And if one wants to state "those are just American sources," I'm certain that casual sex and casual sexual relationship usually are not distinguished in the literature in other countries as well. We should be going by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Casual sex and casual sexual relationship aren't even distinguished in common discourse. The term dating is a common term, and we currently don't call it an Americanism in the Dating article; nor should we. This because, as seen in that article, dating has been mentioned and studied cross-culturally (meaning what dating is like in other countries). It is a term used by non-Americans as well, and it usually means a romantic and/or sexual involvement, not "Oh, my kids are having a play date." or something of that sort. That people, including Americans, sometimes use the expression "It's a date." to mean a friendly situation can be noted in the Dating article, if it is deemed needed. We don't start the Dating article off by stating that it may refer to any meeting between people; nor should we. Similarly, Beyond My Ken argued above that "casual relationship" can mean any relationship between people. We are being too nitpicky with the titles, at the expense of our readership (confusing them by making them think that there is some true difference between casual sex and casual sexual relationship).

In the Dating article, we currently lead with the most common definition, which is a romantic relationship that might involve sexual intimacy. The term casual dating is defined similarly, but with a more casual aspect, and it has been mentioned and studied cross-culturally. The terms dating and casual dating usually have nothing to do with "prudish 1950s US-centric euphemisms." They are valid terms beyond euphemisms. If they are euphemisms, then what are they supposed to mean? Romance? Sexual activity? Courtship? They are a combination of all three, but are still distinct from those matters. Maybe we should have all the casual dating material relocated to the Dating article, and all the casual sex material relocated to the Casual sex article, and then delete the Casual sexual relationship article. I was reminded of this article's title matter because of this recent edit Viriditas made to the Hookup culture article. Reading the lead of that article and seeing both "casual sex" and "casual sexual relationship" mentioned there brought me back here. Viriditas might have a different opinion than me on this rename matter, but if something productive happens in the case of fixing this name issue, it will have been an actual productive discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What are the actual topics for which there is a problem? Is it only the material in the two current articles Casual sex and Casual sexual relationship? Is there some other way to divide the material in those two articles? If we mixed all the section headings of the two articles into one list, would you be able to see a new way to separate them into two articles on actually different topics, do you think? (I have to say, one didn't appear to me on a brief look - I thought about monogamy, long/short term relationships, age, commitment, attitudes to sex...) It does seem that this article is mostly about sex at college, while the other is more general. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that a very clear definition of Casual relationship implies sex. I don't see a problem. GregKaye ✍♪ 20:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. "Casual sex" naturally talks about sexual relationships; we need one on casual dating, I think. Red Slash 03:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's like swimming. You can swim in the shallow end or make your way to the deep end. You can start with dipping your toe in and feeling the water on your feet until at some point you're all the way in, doing laps, splashing around, and enjoying yourself. Calling this article a "casual sexual relationship" is like calling an article on swimming "diving". It's only one small part of the topic, just like sex is only one aspect of casual dating. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Viriditas. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casual dating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224144309/http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/JSR_43-3_Grello.pdf to http://www.sexscience.org/uploads/media/JSR_43-3_Grello.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Casual sexual relationship redirect

Jim Michael, regarding this, see the move discussions above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently, Casual relationship redirects to Casual dating - but Casual sexual relationship redirects to Casual sex. This doesn't make sense, because a casual relationship and a casual sexual relationship are the same thing - a sex buddy / FWBs situation. Jim Michael (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim Michael, I get your point about "casual relationship" compared to "casual sexual relationship." As you can see from the above discussions, redirect matters are not always easy. Some arguments above were that casually dating someone (which is sometimes known as a casual relationship) does not always mean that sex is involved; some people do date without ever having sex with the person. That is why it was felt that "casual dating" should not be titled "casual sexual relationship." Also, "casual dating," when compared to "casual sexual relationship," is the significantly more common term. Since "casual sexual relationship" focuses solely on sex, it seemed best that it redirect to the the Casual sex article. Like I stated before, people who engage in casual sex are sometimes stated to have been in a sexual relationship with the people they had sex with. Within the articles, we took care of the WP:Alternative titles: The Casual dating article states "or a casual relationship." And the Casual sex article states "Examples are sexual activity while casually dating." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

True, but it's even more complicated than that. The Casual dating article says in the first sentence that it's the same as a casual relationship. However, a person can date (casually or not) any number of people without being in a relationship with any of them.

As the redirect stands, it gives the impression that a casual sexual relationship isn't a casual relationship. I'm not sure where the Casual sexual relationship redirect should go to, as it's both casual sex and a casual relationship - but isn't necessarily dating. Jim Michael (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the "a person can date (casually or not) any number of people without being in a relationship with any of them" goes back to what I noted about people who engage in casual sex sometimes being stated to have been in a sexual relationship with the people they had sex with. What I meant is that they are sometimes said to have had a relationship with the person, even though they weren't actually "in" a relationship with the person. This is seen in some of the multiple sex partners research. I would suggest we delete the "casual sexual relationship" redirect since (I think) it was created when the Casual dating article was moved to "Casual sexual relationship," but the link can prove useful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

major problems, readily apparent

1. Shouldn't it be retitled Casual college dating or similar? Except for the gratuitous "Casual sex" appendage, the article is entirely contained in one section, slugged "College students."
2. The word "dating" appears exactly four times: title, first graf (second word), second graf (second word), one footnote. Based on that alone, it's really NOT about "dating" at all, right? Like, it's just a convenient label slapped ineptly on a bunch of loosely related factoids about random non-courtship f@cking amongst unsupervised teenagers? In any case, the term is never defined, or even links to a definition, instead playing a cheap shell game by swapping "dating" and "relationship" to keep the marks from looking too closely.
3. Strangely (though perhaps predictably), Casual dating and Dating do not in any way refer to each other, indicating that the present article is functionally (maybe not intentionally) a content fork. The superior article, though itself bloated and rickety, has the following buried under Dating worldwide ==> North America ==> Canada and United States that seems to more than adequately make Casual dating's existence pointless (elisions mine):

Teenagers and college-aged students tend to avoid the more formal activity of dating, and prefer casual no-strings-attached experiments sometimes described as hookups. It permits young women to "go out and fit into the social scene, get attention from young men, and learn about sexuality" … The term hookup can describe a wide variety of behavior ranging from kissing to non-genital touching to make-out sessions…. A contrary report, however, suggested there has been no "sea change" in sexual behavior regarding college students from 1988 onwards, and that the term hookup itself continued to be used to describe a variety of relationships, including merely socializing or passionate kissing as well as sexual intercourse.

That leaves the question: Merge, or Delete?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Further damnation: it's been established elsewhere (to the satisfaction of apparently everyone other than me) that dating is by definition a human courtship behavior, that there's really no such thing as repeatedly hanging out with someone without hope (however slim) of marriage (which, of course, is going to last unto death). If that urban legend has any validity at all, then "casual dating" is a blatant oxymoron: you cannot do something that's inherently serious in a non-grim manner. Much of Casual dating seems to be more about casual sex, which content really ought to be removed.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah… no. On a straight-through reread, the implication is clear: casual (intimate) relationships occur only amongst college students. Anyone older, or younger, or not enrolled in a postsecondary program is exempt. Some effort MUST be made to expand the scope of this — if not possible, it speaks clearly against the page's root credibility.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

odd statement

Early in the article appears

many college students go on to have casual sex with either friends or peers they have been recently or newly acquainted with.

The first clause is essentially that "having done it once, they often do it at least once more." Innocuous, but obviously the "many" needs to be clarified — where does that lie between "most" and "some"?

The greatest problem with the statement is the latter clause: it basically says their next hookup partner will be just about anyone they've known for at least a few seconds before the hokey-pokey begins — something that seems entirely reasonable to me.

Is that literally what the (over)cited source says, or is it the contributing editor's misstatement?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"Negotiation between participants" section provides citation that directly contradicts what is said in the article

"Communication between the two partners is essential to making this type of relationship work and because the partners in the casual relationship are often friends beforehand, talking to one another is a much simpler task.[11]"

The citation actually finds that "Despite these uncertainties, however, participants reported little talk about the state of the relationship. Almost 85% indicated that no relationship talk was initiated and 73% indicated no discussion of relationship ground rules." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.141.151 (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)