Note: Pseudoscientific racist ideas about sub-species etc. are not acceptable here. I hope posters will get back on topic now. Further posts along those lines will be deleted.

Whoever figured that asians are not promiscuous have never hung out with chinese sailors on leave. Or talked with any sailors who have had a leave in a China port.

:) Sometimes racism is so pathetic, you have to laugh. Still racism though. And gurugeorge will have to take his "theories" elsewhere.

I hope posters will get back on topic now. — Baden

To answer the OP: casual sex is not immoral. Unless the act produces a vehement racist :wink:

Sex itself is immoral by your reckoning. So casual sex must be too.

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?

So a question - is it the act, or can any act for that matter, without context or intention be judged as moral or immoral, and even after that - there is some range in the continuum from immoral to moral - where there is significant overlap in that judgement.

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.

My answer: yes casual sex is always immoral. Sex should be restricted to a committed relationship, where the end goal (of the relationship, not of the sex necessarily) is having a family and children - or at the VERY least intimacy between the two lovers. Marriage is a spiritual union between the two lovers, and as such I don't see the need for the marriage ceremony to officiate this. It's between the two lovers and their God.

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...

yes casual sex is always immoral. — Agustino

How?

Sex should be restricted to a committed relationship, where the end goal (of the relationship, not of the sex necessarily) is having a family and children - or at the VERY least intimacy between the two lovers. — Agustino

Why?

If masturbation is immoral, then I don't know what casual sex would be...

*Shudder*

How? — Maw

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.

Why? — Maw

Based on the harm it can otherwise cause.

@Buxtebuddha, where arth thou?

To encapsulate all of this in a trope: sex is not a toy, it is a nuclear weapon, and should be handled with care. — gurugeorge

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.

Have you never had casual sex Agustino?

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) — Agustino

It cultivates and promotes feelings of lust and selfishness since the only possible motivation to have casual sex is egoism (ie, your own pleasure). — 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.

Is damaging towards your (and your partner's) possibility for emotional bonding (https://www.thetrumpet.com/7750-the-emotional-corrosion-of-casual-sex) — Agustino

You'll have to do better than citing a random religious magazine published by the Philadelphia Church of God.

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. — 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.

It damages the loyalty and devotion that could otherwise exist between the partners through sexual bonding. — 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.

Is that true? Do you think men should be in charge? — T Clark

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:

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

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?

Zed's dead baby

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. — Maw

Wow dawwwwwg, 11-20 is a lot man!

Have you never had casual sex Agustino? — Maw

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.

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. — Agustino

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.

Either by scientific data or personal experience. — Maw

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.

Is casual sex immoral?

Yes but not because it's casual but because it's sex. :smirk:

Interestingly, while scouting the website for some Buddhist views (for another thread), I came unto this thread on this subject:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26711/sex-before-marriage

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. — Ronin3000

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:

You need an Abrahamic religion for that. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Did you check?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26711/sex-before-marriage — Agustino

OK, so not only Abrahamic religions define casual sex as immoral. This has no effect at all on what I said, as far as I can see...?

I think love factors into it for sure, but a) people often confuse love with hormonal lust (which fades after a while) and b) the "calculations" aren't necessarily conscious, in fact often they aren't, but the inner machinery is chungling away making its own estimate, and the delivery to consciousness is simply that the person finds themselves behaving a certain way ("Why did I do that?")

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.

I never understood this constant obsession with the sex lives of others. Is it envy?

Uhm...
Sex is fun, not a sterile fertilization ritual. :roll:
Deny natural fun all you like, it's just self-alienating.

I never understood this constant obsession with the sex lives of others. Is it envy? — Jeremiah

Good question.

Uhm...
Sex is fun, not a sterile fertilization ritual. :roll:
Deny natural fun all you like, it's just self-alienating. — jorndoe

Sex, serves the purpose of procreation. Why are we exploiting that purpose to our amusement?

It's wrong!

It's wrong on so many levels. We should all be ashamed.

Truly, stop!

No, I've never had sex outside of committed relationships. — Agustino

Where should we send the cards of condolence?