Yes but I can discuss with you in terms of the psychological - as the mystical is intimately related with the psychological anyway - it's a step beyond it, that's all there is to it. — Agustino
Nope. I merely identify that it exists, naturally and by itself - as opposed to artifically. I don't discuss whether it's good to have it or not. — Agustino
But if it exists, its in the nature of desire to seek its fulfilment, so if you do things which render it impossible to fulfil, then yes, you have hurt yourself, because that desire was part of you, and you have denied it.
Not true again. Their conception isn't very clear - they don't have very clear reasons why promiscuity is wrong apart from saying that people must get married, or that God ordered it to be so. In either case, what I said before is true. I couldn't have arrived at my view by following any Church - whether it's the Church of atheism or the Church of theism.But this may be the only difference between your views and that of those that claim promiscuity is immoral. — m-theory
Monogamy isn't culturally celebrated anymore. It's always promiscuity that's seen as "the cool thing" to do. When you're in school for example, it's not cool to be in a long-term relationship, it's much cooler to fuck a lot of girls. Why? That's a culture.Certainly it is not an uncommon view in the US that monogamy should be preferable to promiscuity.
Monogamy is celebrated in modern mediums as much if not more than promiscuity. — m-theory
Yes. In fact just recently I've defended such views in this thread: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/861/why-is-social-conservatism-generally-associated-with-religion/p5Can you say "casual sex is wrong even if there is no such thing as a spiritual connection between people"? — Michael
no big thing gained, why waste all the effort merely for physical pleasure — Agustino
they destroy the very capacity for forming permanent bonds, and thus take away a greater good. — Agustino
Yes except that it wasn't a mistake. My argument isn't that it's good to have a single partner because it's natural to want to be special to one person. My argument rather is that people do have such a desire. In the context of them having such a desire, it is good to want to be special to one person and therefore to have a single partner.Your earlier quotes quite clearly do not reflect this. You are arguing whether it's better to have a single partner or not and your argument to have one is "because it's natural to want to be special to one person". That's a fallacy, as pointed out. Your denial doesn't diminish this and it would be nice if you can just gracefully accept this obvious mistake. Everybody makes mistakes, it's ok you know! — Benkei
Not true again. Their conception isn't very clear - they don't have very clear reasons why promiscuity is wrong apart from saying that people must get married, or that God ordered it to be so. In either case, what I said before is true. I couldn't have arrived at my view by following any Church - whether it's the Church of atheism or the Church of theism. — Agustino
Monogamy isn't culturally celebrated anymore. It's always promiscuity that's seen as "the cool thing" to do. When you're in school for example, it's not cool to be in a long-term relationship, it's much cooler to fuck a lot of girls. Why? That's a culture. — Agustino
Sure, so long as you follow Seneca's dictum: "enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones" :) And this applies both along the Epicurean view - namely sex may be a pleasure, but the potential risks associated with it, especially in a casual setting, always outweigh the potential benefits (and this doesn't only include physical risks like STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc. but also emotional risks).Because part of the joy of life is shared pleasure, whether long-lasting or not. — jamalrob
No they couldn't argue so, because a one-night stand doesn't intend to be a permanent bond from the beginning. So you no more realise what it takes for a permanent bond than otherwise.One could argue, for example, that one-night stands allow one to realize how much that is not strictly sexual is involved in maintaining a permanent bond that also involves sex. That is, experience of one-night stands can reduce the obsession with sex. — jamalrob
Yes except that it wasn't a mistake. My argument isn't that it's good to have a single partner because it's natural to want to be special to one person. My argument rather is that people do have such a desire. In the context of them having such a desire, it is good to want to be special to one person and therefore to have a single partner. — Agustino
Thanks.But I concede your point.
You are not religiously opposed to promiscuity.
Fine. — m-theory
That's why in a movie I saw recently (one of the rare few), Brad Pitt has sex with some girl (forgot the names) because they were about to die, so might as well do it. That's absurd, per my view, and that takes a contrary view of sex than the one required for monogamy.Utter nonsense.
They celibate monogamy all the time in the US.
It is a big industry in media. — m-theory
Yes. — Agustino
No they couldn't argue so, because a one-night stand doesn't intend to be a permanent bond from the beginning. So you no more realise what it takes for a permanent bond than otherwise. — Agustino
So? I agreed to this in my very first reply to you, however I also illustrated what can be lost due to such encounters.But you missed my (rather pedestrian) point, which is that there are different kinds of sexual relationship, including temporary and permanent, and an experience with the former can bring an understanding, by contrast, of the qualities of permanent relationships. — jamalrob
But it seems to be that the psychological effects of casual sex depend on the circumstances surrounding it (drunk or sober, pressured or willing) and the ethical views of the participants. Those with a more liberal sexual upbringing don't suffer from autonomous casual sex whereas those with a more conservative sexual upbringing or engaging in non-autonomous casual sex do. — Michael
No because it still remains a fair point. They can't argue they had promiscuous sex in order to gain such an understanding. However, they can argue that, for whatever reason they chose to have promiscuous sex, they have gained such an understanding as a result of it. Such an understanding is never intended in the act.If you agreed to it previously then you contradicted yourself when you said "No they couldn't argue so". — jamalrob
Indeed, which shows my point - culture determines the attitudes that most people have towards sex. It's not biological in other words. — Agustino
Having said this, it requires one to understand what being human entails, and what role does sex have in a human existence, to understand the truth independent of culture - meaning which path is actually better regardless of what you have been taught.
sex may be a pleasure, but the potential risks associated with it, especially in a casual setting, always outweigh the potential benefits — Agustino
They can't argue they had promiscuous sex in order to gain such an understanding. However, they can argue that, for whatever reason they chose to have promiscuous sex, they have gained such an understanding as a result of it. — Agustino
Just because the participants have not seen that they are wrong at point X, doesn't mean they aren't going to see this later, or that they aren't wrong at all.But it means that you can't condemn casual sex on psychological grounds, given that the psychological effects are culture-dependent, and not always negative. — Michael
Just because the participants have not seen that they are wrong at point X, doesn't mean they aren't going to see this later, or that they aren't wrong at all. — Agustino
Having said this, it requires one to understand what being human entails, and what role does sex have in a human existence, to understand the truth independent of culture - meaning which path is actually better regardless of what you have been taught. — Agustino
Nope, that process of horizontal gene transfer is different than reproduction. Bacteria don't reproduce through sex — Agustino
Well - it doesn't, and it's such a simplistic reductionism to think it does. — Agustino
If there are no negative psychological consequences perceiveable right now, does that mean there won't be any, or there aren't in fact any?What do you mean by "wrong" here? I thought your argument against casual sex was that there are negative psychological consequences. I've provided you with evidence that this isn't always the case. — Michael
That's what I meant by horizontal gene transfer - if you read the wiki it will even say that in fact.Are you sure? — TheMadFool
Yes. Sex does not dominate most of human interaction.How so? Do you have a grander, truer (not sure if that's a word) view on the issue? — TheMadFool
If there are no negative psychological consequences perceiveable right now, does that mean there won't be any, or there aren't in fact any? — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.