Is casual sex immoral?
The only 100% method of contraception is abstinence. Therefore, any casual sex risks the possibility of unplanned pregnancy. Under current gynocentric laws in America, women have complete authority on what to do with the baby growing inside them. They can even legally kill the baby. Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.
If you have casual sex as a man, you are risking pregnancy. If pregnancy happens, there is a chance that the woman will abort (legally murder) your baby or give birth to it and abuse it/raise it poorly. After all, what kind of good mother would have casual sex? Therefore, by having casual sex, you are risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for pleasure. I argue that risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for sexual pleasure is immoral.
If you have casual sex as a man, you are risking pregnancy. If pregnancy happens, there is a chance that the woman will abort (legally murder) your baby or give birth to it and abuse it/raise it poorly. After all, what kind of good mother would have casual sex? Therefore, by having casual sex, you are risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for pleasure. I argue that risking the murder/maltreatment of your children in exchange for sexual pleasure is immoral.
Comments (112)
He fathered so many children he didn't know what to do.
Evidently."
It isn't as if our casual sexers have no options to prevent a child from being conceived. Among those options: birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, vasectomies, tubal ligation, contraceptive foams, IUDs, not to overlook just having excellent, high quality sex with other guys--that has yet to result in a pregnancy.
Quoting Ronin3000
A perfectly normal one. Your mother, quite possibly.
Like I said in the first sentence, there is no 100% proven effective method of contraception other than abstinence. Therefore, all sex risks pregnancy.
Would a good mother risk getting impregnated by a guy she doesn't know well just for pleasure? Even if there is a 0.01% of pregnancy, would a good mother risk an unwanted pregnancy just for pleasure? I argue no. That's why I assume that no good mother has casual sex.
I know my mother had casual sex. I never said she was a good mother. I grew up to be a violent criminal.
Well, obviously, abstinence is not 100% effective. People make mistakes. They make bad decisions. Whether or not you like it or whether it's moral, people, including unmarried people, will have sex. Artificial methods of birth control are much more effective than the fantasy that people will not. As Bitter Crank points out, modern methods are very effective. I don't expect perfection in any other aspect of my life, why would I expect it with sex.
Quoting Ronin3000
I think I'd rather give that authority to the women involved than any other party I can think of. I'm against abortion, but I think the woman should be the one that makes the final decision.
Quoting Ronin3000
Except it's not. You can assume it if you want, but if I disagree with you, it's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.
Quoting Ronin3000
I assume that by "casual sex" you mean any sex outside marriage. Is that correct. There is lots of non-marital sex which is not casual. I've never had what I would call casual sex. All my sexual relationships have been with women I had monogamous, long-term relationships with. Abortion is not "legally murder." It's not murder at all. Murder is a crime. Abortion is not.
Quoting Ronin3000
Most of the adult women I know have had sex outside of marriage before they were married. All that I know personally who had children have been good mothers who raised their children well.
You clearly have problems with women having power in their sexual relationships. Is that true? Do you think men should be in charge? Sorry, but you live in the wrong world, or at least the wrong country. Perhaps Saudi Arabia. Maybe ISIS.
You don't argue no woman who has sex outside of marriage would make a bad mother, you assume it. Perhaps if you provided some evidence, I would take your position more seriously. As I said, in my experience it's not true.
You didn't respond to Bitter Crank's point. As he said, the only truly effective method of birth control is homosexual sex. Are you in favor of that?
You'll find very few, if any, people on this forum who will buy your assumption, but you're right. I'm not willing to let your faulty assumptions go without comment, but I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on this thread.
You still haven't responded to Bitter Crank's point about homosexuality. You didn't include an assumption that same-sex sex was immoral.
I don't buy it, but we'll see if anyone else responds.
Also, what did you mean by "Hey, Schop"? Did Schopenhauer argue that having children is immoral because they can't consent to being born?
Quoting Ronin3000
Quoting Ronin3000
You seem to be bogged down in your own self judgement. Abortion being murder seems central to your appraisal. This is settled law to you, what can we add?
Your making the assumption that "casual sex" produces meaningless pleasure. You will hear it here first: There is no such thing as meaningless sex. People engage in sex -- married sex, unmarried sex, straight sex, gay sex, casual sex, serious sex -- because they seek pleasurable and meaningful experiences with other people, and casual sex can and does provide meaningful experiences, just like all the other kinds of sex.
Yes pregnancy might happen. Sometimes a pregnancy is a disaster, but it's a problem that isn't hard to master. Plan B and early abortion solves the problem. Yes, I hear you -- you object to abortion. You think laws on abortion are gynocentric. Since pregnancy is a gynocentric situation, that makes sense. If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would be a sacrament.
I think the safest thing for you to do is avoid sex on any and all occasions except in a marriage which you are certain will last long enough to properly raise the child you father. Otherwise... no sex for you.
On the other hand, the person you ran over probably regretted being born, anyway, so really -- justified homicide.
The way driving is not immoral, but drunk driving is. Should we mandate third party insurance for casual sex?
I believe that we do not own our children. I don't want to get too far away from my original question of the morality of the pull-out method vs. condoms.
Mmm does that include married sex? :lol:
You've not defined "casual" sex, but I'm assuming you define it as sex for some purpose other the procreation, which would include the vast sort of sex that occurs within a marriage. I cannot count the number of times I had sex when married, but I can count the number of kids I have (two), which means that mostly I wasn't having sex to have kids. Since abortion can just as legally occur within a marriage as without, I'm assuming that sex should occur just a few times in a married person's life, else the possibility of abortion/murder.
Of course we could say that casual sex is okey dokey as long as the couple is committed to not aborting the whoopsie daisy, but that would cure the problem for both married and unmarried couples, and that would eliminate the non-problem you've attempted to create.
There are also a class of people who can't get pregnant, either as the result of surgery, genetics, or age. By their mid 40s, it's next to impossible for a woman to get pregnant without a donor egg being artificially inseminated and implanted in her uterus and it's entirely impossible for a post-menopausal woman to get pregnant, so I'm assuming that lucky class of women get to fuck like bunny rabbits. Maybe it's their reward for getting old, giving all those young nubile sexually frustrated women something to look forward to as they age.
And then there's of course homosexual sex, which it appears you are an overwhelming fan of. I am quite certain that cannot result in a bouncing bundle of joy, so we therefore need not worry about the resultant child being slaughtered. I think we'd both agree, though, that our homosexual friends shouldn't be the only ones who get to have all the fun, so we heteros should simply adopt their oral and anal solution to this problem. That is, keep away from the Va J J (at least with the Willie) and we should all be alright. Who knows, it might be plenty enjoyable and fulfilling, but I expect less so for the ladies.
While it's true that any casual sex risks unplanned pregnancy, it doesn't follow that I shouldn't have casual sex because there is a risk involved. There are many things in life that risk life, and we do them on a daily basis. Under certain circumstances you could argue that casual sex is immoral, but not all casual sex is immoral, one would have to show at the very least that there is harm done to the people involved.
It's also not true that women in America have complete authority on what to do with unplanned pregnancy. Have you actually read Roe v Wade? I haven't read it in quite some time, but if I remember correctly, if a women is in her last trimester she has to consult a doctor. There are also other stipulations.
I sure wouldn't stipulate that all abortion is equivalent to murder, that's just not true. I don't believe that a zygote is equivalent to a person, it's just not the same thing. The most you can say is it's a potential person, and as such it has value. If you believe all abortion is murder, then I can see why you would go to great lengths to do all you can to stop it. Consider a case where the mother's life is in danger if she gives birth, how can it be murder to take the life of the fetus to protect her own life? I do believe that you shouldn't abort without good reason, and I do believe that the decision to abort should be done, in many cases with a doctors advice, if possible. You could argue that some, most, or many abortions are immoral, but that has to be decided on a case by case basis. The decision should be between the mother, family, and a doctor, and in some cases the mother can make the decision on her own. However, your argument isn't a good one to say the least.
The attacks should be against the argument not against the person, so those of you attacking the person are in the wrong. All that should matter is the argument, is it a good one or not. I happen to think it stinks.
Thanks for the cool article. Nice to be reintroduced to Kierkegaard in this manner.
legal and moral are at best distance cousins
Quoting Sam26
I wouldn't stipulate abortion is murder either. All the other points there are far from settled and there are good arguments for and against - and the best arguments IMO on both sides of the issue have abandoned any tie to person hood at all.
Quoting Sam26
the fetus has rights, this is a case of competing rights -
Quoting Sam26
I don't see any reason you can't make an argument either for or against abortion as moral or immoral, understanding of course that all such general judgments can be mitigated by particular circumstances.
sorry - this was meant to read " if the fetus has rights - that was big IF i left off
There's a technical term for men who can get pregnant - he's called a "woman."
man I am messing this up - that was meant for the comment about it being settled law -
You won't get an argument from me on that.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Except that one could make an argument that the closer one gets to viability, the closer one gets to having a good argument that it's a person. The problem here of course is that the line gets blurry at points, and thus isn't as clear as we would like. For me it's clear that a zygote isn't a person. Thus, not being a person, it's difficult to see how abortion could be murder, since murder always involves persons.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I agree, cases for and against abortion come down to competing rights, the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus. Of course does a zygote have rights? Usually when we talk of rights, we're talking about persons. If we're talking about moral or immoral, then that's a separate question.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Again, I agree.
A person is a philosophical construct.
Barring severe mutation or inter species breeding, we know the zygote is human life. We talk of “human rights” not “person rights.”
Life obviously is not a human right.
are you familiar with Don Marquis argument on a future of value ? If so what do you think of it.
this part is opinion - not argument - but the concept of person hood has a rich history of being used as a justification for making a sub class of human beings that it is ok to do bad stuff to.
Rights is a philosophical construct.
The meaning of the word person is not some philosophical construct, meaning, and I talk about this all the time in my thread on Wittgenstein, is something that takes place in language, and how that word is used. So one can't just make up any definition of the word and think it applies, as some philosophers and theologians do. It's more complicated than that.
Quoting Kamikaze Butter
I'm not saying you can't make an argument that a zygote has rights, especially given that it's a potential person at the very least. Does all human life have rights, does a sperm have rights? It's not as easy as you seem to think it is. By the way, we do talk about persons having rights, but you're also right, we also talk of human rights, but when we talk of human here, I don't think we're talking about the rights of zygotes. Do you think that when the founding fathers were talking of rights, they were including a clump of cells, probably not. Maybe we should expand some rights to potential persons. I don't know.
Right. I pointed out an issue regarding language and the construction of human rights.
Sperm does not contain the human genome, therefore it is not human life. Life begins at conception.
That part is academic.
I am pro choice, and I have considered that children under two can be executed on the parents’ choice. Some go as high as four.
Is that immoral?
When we talk of the zygote or fetus as a potential person we are talking of future value, but we're also talking of present value. No, I haven't read Don Marquis argument.
Yes, if one makes the argument that since the zygote is not a person, that it's just a clump of cells, and as such has no value, then one can justify doing experiments on zygotes, presumably. One might also argue that any subclass of humans is not a person, therefore they have no rights, and people do and have done this. I believe these are just very poor arguments.
In a nutshell -
P1 - People like you and me have a future, it includes many things of value, relationships, experiences, etc
P2 - It is immoral to deny people like us our future of value without cause.
P3 - After the process of conception there exists a unique human organism
P4 - This organism is alive
P5 - This human organism has a future of value - much like ours
Conclusion - If it is immoral to deny a future of value, and after conception there is a human organism with a future of value, it is immoral to deny that organism its future of value. Abortion denies that future of value - abortion is immoral.
Singer's argument - which logical includes infanticide - which many - including me choke on. Of course it has a big caveat that that child is not wanted at all by anyone - that no harm to anyone would be caused by the death of the child - seems a very high hurdle in practice
Hmmm, it's not always immoral to deny that organism its future value. I would stipulate that without good reason it's immoral to deny that organism its future value.
think i said that
Quoting Rank Amateur
Probably should be some qualifier such as "just" or "reasonable" etc in front of cause - went fast - hope that is implied.
P1. Anything which increases the chance that a foetus will be terminated is immoral
P2. Casual sex increases the chance that a foetus will be terminated
C. Therefore, casual sex is immoral
The argument is valid.
The truth (and scope) of the premises is debatable, though.
There's also an interesting counter-argument, utilising the "future of value" that you mentioned earlier:
P1. Anything which increases the chance that something with a future of value will be born is good
P2. Casual sex increases the chance that something with a future of value will be born
C. Therefore, casual sex is good.
I agree with the conclusion - and have no need of the premises !!
I haven't taken any position on the O/P if that was directed at me.
"Murder" is a legal term for the unlawful killing of a person. We should not assume that an inchoate fetus is isomorphic to a person.
Depends on the source and jurisdiction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder
In 2004, Scott Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder for the death of his unborn son in California.
Canadian law allows to specially recognize in advance the rights that a foetus would have had if it had been born, when some situations occurs. Forced abortions are thus upgraded to murder 1, murders of pregnant ladies count has 2 murders, etc...
The foetus is not a person, tho, under canadian law. For that, legally, he needs tombe both alive and viable. We just really dont like people who kills pregnant ladies.
But you can have a dead zygote, so containing the human genome must not be the critical criterion for life.
You also can get an egg to subdivide without fertilization, and perhaps technology will allow cloning one day. Will all eggs be potential life when that day occurs and therefore be protected as all human beings should?
However, casual sex is immoral, because the telos of the sexual organs is reproduction, and the continuity of human life through time, not pleasure - the fact that sex is pleasurable (in fact the most intense pleasure of which we're normally capable, second only to some kinds of mystical epiphany) is a byproduct of the telos, it cannot without societal dysfunction and disarray be an end in itself.
The "sexual revolution" seemed like a good idea at the time, to the (relative to previous generations) ridiculously privileged adolescents of the Boomer generation, but it has been absolutely disastrous for our societies (e.g. in the US, hitting Blacks first of all, and now latterly Whites,, HIspanics, etc., too) - it's led to a massive increase in single-parent families, which has resulted in increased crime, addiction, various kinds of societal dysfunction and a great deal of suffering, not just as a result of the crime and social dysfunction per se, but as a result of psychological dissatisfaction arising from non-conformity with the telos of sexuality. Increased female unhappiness, and increased male suicide are direct social consequences of the loosening of sexual mores. (Females riding the "cock carousel" while nubile and postponing reproduction till their sexual market value has declined, and lower-SMV males being unable to marry and reproduce because the former process shuts them out of the reproductive game and heaps even more mating privilege on already high-SMV males, are two important causes of the profound alienation and dissatisfaction in society today.)
People will have some casual sex anyway, and always have done, precisely because sexual pleasure is so powerful. And while of course it shouldn't be illegal (not everything that is immoral has to be illegal), you have to actively discourage it publicly by means of societal disapproval and (in the worst-case scenario) social shaming (and/or by means of social tropes like the "shotgun wedding"), in order it to bring its deleterious societal effects to a manageable level.
As is typical of you, there are no citations, studies, articles, etc. demonstrating a causal relationship between the sexual revolution and societal issues, or how "non-conformity with the telos of sexuality" directly results in "psychological dissatisfaction". And how precisely did the Sexual Revolution "hit" Blacks first? The idea of Black hyper-sexuality is a racist idea that has stubbornly persisted since the 17th century as a cover for white promiscuity. Can we really ignore social media addiction and self-presentation perfectionism, work dissatisfaction and increased work hours, market volatility, blue-collar job flight, increasing economic inequality, stagnate wages,cumbersome debt, racial disparities, etc. as contributing factors to crime, suicide, unhappiness and other societal ills etc.?,..Can we honestly deny that they have a larger impact is societal dysfunction than...supposedly loosened sexual mores? I don't think we can, particularly when recent studies show that younger generations today have fewer sexual partners on average, and overall have less sex than older generations.
You state that we, as a society, should "actively discourage" casual sex and polyamory, but it's not clear what that would look like in practice, and I think it's fair to say - based on historical precedent - that this would be overwhelmingly focused on women. Jordan Peterson recently entertained the idea of "enforced monogomy", an explosive phrase he typically lobs in order to garner shock and attention (but vague enough to walk back from the otherwise obvious meaning). However, contrary to yours and Peterson's concerns, monogamous relationships are overwhelmingly viewed positively, while, according to a Gallup Poll from 2013, shows that Americans strongly disprove of affairs (91%), and polygamy (83%). Divorce rates are also at 40 year low, as of 2015.
So yeah...I'm not quite sure how relevant the Sexual Revolution of the 60's has been in the last 50 years to our current "societal dysfunction", when "hookup culture" is more of fantasy played out in movies, TV shows, and in the imaginative minds of conservatives, than what exists in reality.
Finally, crime has also steadily decreased since the early 90's. It has not increased, as you said. And your idea of that women have a "sexual market value" is blatantly sexist.
It's a more or less Aristotelian position. Morality (which has nothing to do with any sort of "commandments" of course) is a function of teleology in the following way: if you want to use a thing successfully, the use you make of it ought to conform to its nature and purpose, any other kind of use is misuse, and will likely backfire. Animals tend to instinctively use things properly (granted some genetic variation, and within the limits set by their genetics and by their lacking reason); humans are odd in that they operate much less on instinct than other animals, and have to choose to use things properly (and can choose not to do so). This is nested in the larger teleology of virtue ethics. Roughly speaking, what is moral is to be the best human being, and specifically the best you, that you can be, where "best" is defined as actualizing your - general and specific - potential. And that necessarily includes your potential to reproduce your kind, and requires some care and consideration for the support structure and genetic closeness of your kind - implying the necessity for both reciprocal altruism and kin altruism.
Quoting Maw
Glad to see you're a keen student of my posts, and I take your point re. lack of citations, but I'm not out to "demonstrate" anything, I just wanted to briefly outline a position and casually chat about it. I'll let you know when I'm doing a peer-reviewed scientific paper on the topic.
Quoting Maw
Even more stubborn and persistent are facts:- https://www.stdtestexpress.com/std-news/the-demographics-of-stds-race-8080172740/
Human beings are (rational) animals, and like other species, we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations (into relative genetic closeness or distance). For humans, there are 3 broad and about 7 or 9 more refined sub-species, or "races," which evolved as a result of relative geographic isolation, mostly in prehistory. Racial categories have fuzzy and somewhat arbitrary boundaries (arbitrary in the sense that there are always edge cases and undecidable cases), but the racial categories are in the main solid enough to provide useful information and be predictive, and there are clusters of average traits that hold across the races (skin colour is only one marker of race, of course - other markers that show consistent average differences between races are skeletal morphology, differences in the brain, proneness to various diseases, aggression, sociability, hair types and coverage, maturation rates - and among a zillion other things, mating patterns).
It turns out that of the three main races, Asians tend to be the least promiscuous, Blacks the most, with Whites inbetween. And while human culture and society certainly has an independent, standalone aspect that's not directly affected by biology (we might call that aspect memetic, ideational, or just plain cultural), which gives us some elbow room for experimentation; and while "human capital" is probably just as important for outcomes as human biology: nevertheless the structure of the body and brain as mandated by its DNA plays an important role even in culture. Culture is part of the extended phenotype. This isn't rocket science - but it is biology.
The breakdown of the Black family and the atomization of the Black middle class in the 1960s, and the connection of that breakdown to crime is well documented (cf. for example Thomas Sowell's several books on and around the topic), and in the US, those Blacks who have escaped the Democratic Party plantation are getting increasingly pissed off about it. Of course there's a lot more to it than the sexual revolution, but I'm talking about the specific contribution of the normalization of casual sex, promiscuity, etc., to social dysfunction.
Quoting Maw
No, and I wouldn't propose to do so in a more general context, but again, the topic is casual sex, and I'm sketching the particular impact of widespread, normalized casual sex as an important contributory cause of social dysfunction, awareness of which is repressed by today's received wisdom.
Quoting Maw
It would look like a partial return to a more traditional society. The new isn't necessarily the good, and societies can change for the worse, as well as for the better. Some mistakes have been made in the 20th century, as well as some genuine progress. The mistakes should be reversed or fixed as much as possible, the progress retained.
Quoting Maw
It's actually just a jargon term in the relevant sciences that he used quite innocently, but of course Leftists are always eager to smear and shut down anything that goes counter to their ideology.
Things can be "enforced" as social habits.
I covered the question of legality in my post, if that's what you're worried about. The relaxation of legal strictures on interpersonal interaction in the course of the 20th century in Western cultures I would consider an example of genunine progress (traditional human cultures have often been unnecessarily strict about policing sexuality). Fret not, nobody's talking about handmaidens and their tales ;)
The sexual behaviour of both males and females is "enforced" extra-legally in traditional societies, but in different ways (and in different ways in different cultures - again, this is the result of both biological and memetic evolution). The focus on females is just an artifact of the difference in the relative abundance of the two sexes' gametes, and the balance, or division of reproductive labour between the sexes in our markedly sexually dimorphic species. Females have to be much more careful about reproduction because they have less potential shots at it, so they bear more risk than males, and there's more pressure on them to get it right, e.g. to take care to choose a good mate, who'll both provide good genetic material and stick around to help them raise the child (especially during the period of greater vulnerability during pregnancy and their children's early development).
This means that women are effectively more precious to human society, and more a protected class, than men. This is reflected in: the fundamental gynocentrism of human society (under normal conditions, much of human society is built around protecting females and ensuring the safety and stability of their reproductive cycle); the lack of necessity for agency and responsibility in females (other than wrt childrearing - their "one job" so to speak, the only thing society pressures them to take responsibility for); the greater number of taboos around female sexuality; greater male disposability; greater burdens of agency and social responsibility on males (laughably construed by Feminists as men being mean and "in control"). The taboos around female sexuality aren't meant to spoil women's fun, but to ensure as much as possible that they can make the most of their biologically more constrained chance at reproduction. (I say "meant" - of course such habits evolved blindly initially, and religion and tradition have fitfully re-presented to consciousness, and further fostered, those evolved behaviours.)
Quoting Maw
Actually it's a fantasy that up until the past 5 years or so was constantly pumped out by Leftists and fellow-travelling creatives in those fields, who encouraged sexual promiscuity, precisely because they hoped it would lead to the breakdown of the White nuclear family form (which Blacks had long copied), which they saw as the main bulwark and seedbed of "patriarchy," "authoritarianism" and "White oppression." Sex ought to be an individual choice, you understand, do what feels right ...
Conservatives, as the name suggests, are opposed to all that, and would prefer a return to traditionalism, with individuals' sexual behaviour somewhat shepherded by society at large. The belief is that the sexual revolution has led to a joyless narcissism, focused entirely on solipsistic pleasure, and on what can be received rather than what can be given and contributed to the ongoing life and continuity of a people through time. (As a side-light, both consumerism and casual sex are part of the larger syndrome of the Left's relentless destructive critique of traditional European/American - White - social mores, in turn a function of the "long march through the institutions" first proposed by Gramsci and accelerated by thinkers of the 60s like Marcuse.)
As you point out, even after 50 or so years of propaganda from the cybernetic industries encouraging loose morals, people are still uncomfortable with it. But of course in the trenches of everyday life, it's hard to muster the will to resist the temptation to easy sexual pleasure, especially when "society" tells you it's ok. So people are quite schizophrenic about it; on the one hand, they know they're doing wrong and still give lip-service to what's right, but because society encourages their wrongdoing, they continue to indulge in casual sex against their better judgement - and as the OP pointed out, no form of birth control is 100% effective.
Things are changing though; on the one hand the Left's position has become increasingly incoherent, inconsistent, incomprehensible and ideologically obsesssed; on the other hand, there is a shift to the Right going on everywhere, especially among the Gen Z young (who see the mess their parents and grandparents got into).
Quoting Maw
Crime rose from the 60s to the 90s, then decreased, it is now increasing again. We're living through the aftermath of an earthquake that happened in the 60s/70s, but as I've said and as you've pointed out yourself, there are many other factors involved.
All this is in the context of the centuries-long fall in crime in European and American societies, but that looks like it's reversing in those societies, with increasing immigration and the demographic decline of Whites (who are relatively well-behaved, though not as well-behaved as Asians).
I suppose it depends on the scope and "grain" of the investigation - and how honest people are about it.
Quoting Maw
As I pointed out, men have sexual market value too; mating is akin to an economic negotiation between the sexes based on guesses at prospective mate quality, likelihood of family stability, of faithfulness, etc. To some extent the negotation is conscious and calculating, but most of it is unconscious, and some smaller part of it is instinctive.
To encapsulate all of this in a trope: sex is not a toy, it is a nuclear weapon, and should be handled with care.
I'm well aware of Aristotle's theory of ethics, but there is nothing convincing about tying the mere act of sexual reproduction to enhancing one's moral character. You state that human are "rational animals"; I would argue that our rationality enables us to be unbounded by the shackles of blind instinct, including the drive to reproduction. That an anti-natalist, one who chooses not to have children, or someone who is infertile, one who - regardless of choice - cannot have children, are less of a "person" or less moral - or outright immoral, than a person who does, is outright nonsense.
Quoting gurugeorge
When you attempt to make factual claims about the world, but fail to provide any citations, why should I believe what you are saying? Fortunately, for me, I'm well read enough to know that most of what you said was flat out wrong.
Quoting gurugeorge
And there it is! Blatant racism dressed up esoteric science and casual observation.
Quoting gurugeorge
As I pointed out in my previous post, monogamy is very much the norm in today's society, and alternatives, e.g. polygamy, are widely disproved of by the general population. So what precisely does "enforced" mean here when it's overwhelmingly approved of? You don't actually outline details in your previous post, but when you say things like "women are a protected class" within the realm of sexuality, then that hints at something more nefarious than simple "social disapproval".
I can't even bother to respond to the remainder of your sexist, racist, and alt-right garbage post. No point in wasting my time with a bigot.
Per Webster:
No I think @gurugeorge, who has fervently claimed that there are "7 to 9 sub-species" of humans in addition to "three main races" in which Asians are the "most well-behaved" and "less promiscuous", while Blacks are "the least well-behaved" and "most sexually promiscuous"; has stated that the increase of (non-Caucasian, non-Asian) immigration and decrease of the white population leads to the increase of crime; and who additionally believes that women are essentially reducible to their "reproductive function" is, apodictically, a deprived, stupid, deplorable bigot and racist and sexist. And if I were a moderator I would have banned him.
We should hope a moderator is somewhat wiser about silencing opposing views than you are....?
What does anything I said have to do with "enhancing one's moral character?" What does that even mean?
Quoting Maw
Reproduction isn't a "blind instinct," if it were a blind instinct people would do it instinctively and automatically. As I said in my last post, reproduction is a function of conscious thought, a mass of unconscious calculation and a small measure of instinctive behaviour.
Quoting Maw
It's fortunate that I never said any such thing then, isn't it?
Quoting Maw
You obviously wouldn't believe what I'm saying even if I provided the cites :)
Quoting Maw
The science isn't "esoteric," nor is it "racist" to point out that it exists. I used "recondite" jokingly because it's complex biochemistry stuff that I don't understand myself. But the results are quite legitimate and widely accepted. You're ill-informed if you think otherwise.
Once again, try to let the science sink in: human beings are animals, and there is biodiversity in the human animal just as there is in any other animal. It is not "racist" to point that out, and it is not "racist" to take that fact into consideration when thinking about morality and social problems.
You can't just throw the word "racist" around randomly as if it were some sort of ideological garlic, you know. You've seen what happens when you do that, right? You get Trump. :)
Quoting Maw
And yet for some time now we have seen increases in single parenthood, a decline in marriage and in reproduction, and increasing divorce rates.
Quoting Maw
As I said, the situation would look like a partial return of traditionalism. For example, even 50 years ago, having a divorcee as the lead character in a tv show was understood as borderline unacceptable - is that what you think of as "nefarious?"
Quoting Maw
The bigot takes an average as a stereotype, and then pre-judges every member of the group as possessed of that stereotypical set of traits. Can you point to where I've done that?
Quoting Maw
"fervently" lol
Quoting Maw
Not "in addition to," they're just alternative classifications, one very broad, the other more refined and detailed.
Quoting Maw
TEND TO BE. Again, we're talking about AVERAGES ACROSS POPULATIONS. There are lots of Asians who are promiscuous and lots of Blacks who aren't. There are plenty stupid Asians and smart Blacks. Etc., etc., et multae ceterae. THAT IS IMPLICIT IN THE VERY FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AVERAGES.
Quoting Maw
That's just what happens when you import groups that are on average more violent than Whites, who outbreed Whites.
Quoting Maw
Wrong again, that's not what I said.
You jump to conclusions and you seem to be incapable of parsing nuanced distinctions, you are gratuitously insulting, and you would ban someone who says things you don't agree with. In short, you seem to be an exemplary product of our current education system. Good job!
:) Sometimes racism is so pathetic, you have to laugh. Still racism though. And gurugeorge will have to take his "theories" elsewhere.
To answer the OP: casual sex is not immoral. Unless the act produces a vehement racist :wink:
Giving birth to children can result, by some people's (mine too I think) logic, in the baby turning out to be either a prey or predator. Both are ugly I believe. So, sex is immoral IF it leads to children.
Casual sex, then, has to be immoral right?
Example - is shooting some one immoral ?? It depends is the answer. Even after adding context and intent - there will be some reasoned disagreement.
So to the O/P my take is:
If, like me, you believe there is a tacit approval given during consensual sex by both parties to be responsible for the care of children that may result. Then, if you engage in any sexual activity that may result in children, and you are unwilling to accept this responsibility - than the act is immoral.
If, unlike me, you do not believe there is any tacit responsibility for children that may result - than it is not immoral.
And the crux of this, like most moral choices one makes, what does your true self really believe - what does your conscience say.
In today's world though, this can be a double-edged sword, it's a tight rope to walk, because relationships and families are more unstable today than they were in the past. It's definitely doable, but gotta be careful man... gotta be careful...
How?
Quoting Agustino
Why?
*Shudder*
Lots of reasons really, but:
• Treats the other person as an object (or as a means to an end), and does not accord them the value they deserve (nor you the value you deserve)
• Is damaging towards your (and your partner's) possibility for emotional bonding (https://www.thetrumpet.com/7750-the-emotional-corrosion-of-casual-sex)
• The brain gets used to having multiple partners, and then a relationship is no longer as special - you become less capable of a serious relationship.
• It damages the loyalty and devotion that could otherwise exist between the partners through sexual bonding.
• It cultivates and promotes feelings of lust and selfishness since the only possible motivation to have casual sex is egoism (ie, your own pleasure).
Though if you're not really interested in having a family and some such, then probably you'll find it more difficult to perceive the harm.
Quoting Maw
Based on the harm it can otherwise cause.
I agree with this, but more based on emotional and psychological effects, not so much based on the "instrumentalisation" of sex model you have presented. Talking about "market-value" and some such ignores the fact that, naturally, relationships develop between people based on love, not based on a calculative, methodical approach of obtaining a desired result. The problem in our world is that people have all but forgotten about love - they no longer want to love, instead, they want to have fun, that has become the goal.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Casual sex does not preclude affording your partner the sexual attention they deserve or need. Having casual sex does not necessarily mean exclusively focusing on your own sexual needs at the expense of your partner's. That's simply a difference between good sex and bad sex. A citation is also required here.
Quoting Agustino
You'll have to do better than citing a random religious magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God.
Quoting Agustino
This requires a citation. The average person has around 11-20 unique sexual partners in his or her lifetime (if memory serves), and I sincerely doubt that after merely 20 or so partners, the brain is so radically transformed and immutable so that you can't form a special sexual relationship with anybody.
Quoting Agustino
Not everyone desires, or needs "loyalty and devotion" with a random sexual partner (in fact, it goes without saying that most people don't). And given that this doesn't exclude the ability to form "loyalty and devotion" with another sexual partner, should one wish it, I don't see an issue.
Can there be two Alexanders on Earth or two suns in the sky? (well ignoring binary solar systems for now) No.
I do think that there should be one person who is in charge of the household ultimately. Whether this is the man or the woman is less relevant. But this is important because there can sometimes be disagreements on the common course of action between the partners. In such cases, one partner must have the power to decide for the two of them, and the other one must acknowledge this power as justified. Otherwise, the disagreement can become corrosive, and dissolve the unity of the family.
The Bible for example states:
The reason behind such rules is precisely this. If there is not such a possibility for final arbitration in case of disagreements, then they cannot be dissolved, since each partner will perceive that they are in the right to hold onto their side. Then what happens? They go two seaprate ways on an issue, and therefore, in-so-far as they go two separate ways they are no longer united.
I mean, how else could unity in the family be achieved, if there is no final place of arbitration, no final place to issue a verdict that all members acknowledge as justified, and will follow?
Wow dawwwwwg, 11-20 is a lot man!
No, I've never had sex outside of committed relationships. Nor did my partners for that matter, but then it's only natural that I am attracted to such people given my own views.
So you're not offering any justification for this view of yours. Either by scientific data or personal experience. Not at all surprising given your puritan view of women.
There are several studies I've linked to in a previous thread, there is evidence on both sides. I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul, and what I've seen in the lives of others. There are some people who cannot have normal relationships, because they never did in the past. They don't know how. Their whole worldview and conception about sex, and its role is affected by their actions.
And of course, you can say my own worldview and conception about sex affects me, but I would say that it affects me towards creating a stable family that can withstand all external pressures. That's in line with my goals.
Yes but not because it's casual but because it's sex. :smirk:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26711/sex-before-marriage
It looks like you are seeking to add justification to a view you already hold. :chin: My view is that all consensual sex between adults is morally acceptable. Any consequences of such an act, however, are the responsibility of both partners, as must always be the case. So breeding unwanted children is immoral, specifically because they are unwanted. Morally, it should therefore be avoided. But this still does not make casual sex immoral. You need an Abrahamic religion for that. :wink:
Did you check?
Quoting Agustino
Animals without any such symbolic apparatus and capacity for thought as we have, also behave "as if" they make such calculations too. Evolution responds to what Dennett called "free-floating rationales" - what Aristotle would have called "Telos."
The degree to which love is a factor differs for different cultures at different times - and there's a lot of possibility between the one pole of absolute romantic love (the relevant partners choosing by elective affinity) and the other pole of totally arranged marriage (the parents and extended family choosing for the partners, on the basis of the market/cultural aspects). Inbetween you have what was normal in the West - the weighting being towards romantic love, but the children consulting the parents and taking their advice seriously.
Sex is fun, not a sterile fertilization ritual. :roll:
Deny natural fun all you like, it's just self-alienating.
Quoting Jeremiah
Good question.
Sex, serves the purpose of procreation. Why are we exploiting that purpose to our amusement?
It's wrong!
Truly, stop!
Where should we send the cards of condolence?
meaning they are depriving others. If we are all stingy with sex, nobody will get enough. I've had several hundred and I regret none of them. Though, admittedly, some were better, some were a lot better, than others.
But, the Lord is beneficial and would not want us to indulge in such promiscuous activities. Heed the Lord!
Posty, dear: Do you honestly think that the beneficial Lord, creator of universes, infinite, all knowing, all seeing, every present, all powerful, etc. is actually concerned with the number of times you have sex for any purpose -- productive or otherwise?
How to you square the galaxy-spanning deity with the same god having a detailed interest in your penis-related activities?
Don't you suppose that Gawd, in His infinite mercy, knowing what life was going to be like most of the time, would provide a compensation like a built in amusement park? What kind of joy-killing monster do you think Gawd is?
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Yes, the Lord does work in mysterious ways.
"It bothers me that she's not the least bit curious."
God created us so he'd have some porn to watch.
Immorality, in that sense, is not so much good and evil, as it is anything that adds flaws to the team which make it less additive and less efficient. Casual sex can cause social disease which can hurt the team. Sex is also a game which can involve sweet little lies and promises you can't keep. This can also impact the team if the two lovers lose attraction. It is like having sex with a coworker, which does not work out for one of the two, yet you still have to work together. The team can suffer.
However, there are also scenarios where the two lovers become a better team, who both also play on the larger team and make it better. The math of immorally is more complex than the opening action. It also has to include the aftermath and the total impact on the larger team.
That's an oxymoron. Being the one to quit the debate out of intolerance towards bigotry makes you yourself a bigot.
Maybe it's the meaning of life.
Like all good show(o)men, it fakes it until you makes it.
And you shouldn't let this deflate you; in place of an Ayn Rand novel you get to enjoy an erotic mystery.
Well, I don't admire Trump in that respect, I think it is a very shameful thing, and he should be ashamed of those actions.
Well, he is quite old now to be promoting promiscuity, and it doesn't appear that he is.
I say that this side of Trump is definitely something that developed out of the cultural milieu he was positioned in. That's what he saw around himself, and that's what he did. It's the media who made promiscuous sex more acceptable after all.
You say that as if that were an argument, but it ain't one.