10:45:08 PM Aug 3rd 2014
Do we really need all this for the explanation? It's a trope, not a history lesson or lecture on sex ethics.
09:16:44 AM Aug 4th 2014
Uh yeah. Migth want to propose a rewrite here - I am not in time to come up with one myself.
02:30:41 AM Aug 26th 2014
edited by 188.8.131.52
edited by 184.108.40.206
It's not that long and has a laconic already. My concerns are it touching on developments in a part of the world as if they happened that way everywhere("the church" was imposing itself somewhere but was being beheaded and sold into slavery elsewhere), and implies only men wore condoms. But if length is to be cut, why not cut everything between "Second addendum: The partner who is in love will demand fidelity from the other partner." and "In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between" and cut the note too? Because that just seems too preachy to me.
09:06:05 PM Sep 8th 2014
Yeah, I also don't feel like the whole "back before..." bit at the beginning is really necessary, either. The whole description reads too preachily, to me. Like it's trying to present evidence for an argument, rather than describe a trope.
02:54:21 PM Sep 9th 2014
Oh, and also I think the name might need to be changed. As it is, the name implies that this trope is about sex only being something that happens between people who are in love, or something to that effect, but the trope description implies more of a "leads to" relationship.
12:52:55 AM Dec 17th 2012
I thought some reality context might be warranted, so I added the paragraph below: "In reality the correlation between sex and romance can be anything from strict fidelity between exclusive lovers, to casual sex between friends, to dating, experimenting and anything in-between*. Emotions sometimes get the jump on us, and even though people tend to date each other with prospect towards a potential helpmeet, sometimes dating can become casual sex, and sometimes the reverse can be true. So yes, in Real Life people in a casual sexual relationship can find that after a while physical intimacy with another person fosters a romantic inclination, however, this trope is when having a sexual relationship with another person will result in a romantic relationship, no arguing." The thing about sex and relationships is that in reality the line gets really fuzzy sometimes, and sometimes you're just hanging on and seeing where things go. I thought it was important to point out that yes, sometimes sex does in fact result in a relationship, but the point of this trope was that there was no escaping the outcome of a romantic relationship (because somewhere behind the liberal progressiveness of television is the unspoken assumption that sex without love is immoral). I think this clarification (or something like it if someone would like to edit my paragraph and say it better than I have - of course please feel free) might be helpful on this page because I've noticed around the place (can't bloody remember where now damnit) that sometimes the trope Sex Equals Love is used when the outcome of just one particular casual sex relationship is romance on a background of other equally prominent casual relationships that stay casual. Otherwise the feeling gets spread around (or maybe it's just me *shrugs*) that any casual sex relationship that evolves into romance is this trope, and not just a Relationship Upgrade. (Sorry for the long topic... I've never done one of these before so I hope this is ok...)
04:31:13 AM Nov 28th 2012
Historical context: in my recent expansion of the historical context, I still omitted the Victorian motion, that sex-for-fun was A. only a male phenomenon and B. Sinful to the max, to be avoided at all cost.