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

But is the mystical aspect necessary? Or can you condemn casual sex purely on psychological grounds? Can you say "casual sex is wrong even if there is no such thing as a spiritual connection between people"?

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

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!

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.

Now you're making he claim conditional that if this desire exists then it would better (avoids hurting yourself) to have a single partner. Still a fallacy!

EDIT: if it makes any difference at the old forum I once started a thread that was a single long naturalistic fallacy. It happens.

But this may be the only difference between your views and that of those that claim promiscuity is immoral. — m-theory

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.

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

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.

Can you say "casual sex is wrong even if there is no such thing as a spiritual connection between people"? — Michael

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/p5

no big thing gained, why waste all the effort merely for physical pleasure — Agustino

Because part of the joy of life is shared pleasure, whether long-lasting or not.

they destroy the very capacity for forming permanent bonds, and thus take away a greater good. — Agustino

This is not quite true in my experience. I don't see the problem in accepting a variety of types of sexual relationship. One could argue, for example, that one-night stands can bring an understanding of how much that is not strictly sexual is involved in maintaining a permanent bond (one that also involves sex). And it's a fairly common observation that an experience of one-night stands can reduce one's obsession with sex.

I may eat tapas casually with my fingers but still observe the ceremony later when I sit down to dinner. If I hadn't had the tapas, and had then sat down to dinner ravenous, I might not behave quite so well.

Isn't the answer to this whole discussion: whatever works for you?

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

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.

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

I don't agree that your views are very clear either (well perhaps to you they are).
But I concede your point.
You are not religiously opposed to promiscuity.
Fine.

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

Utter nonsense.
They celibate monogamy all the time in the US.
Talk shows with experts on happy monogamy, fairy tales with happy ever after romance, magazines and websites on how to make your relationship last.
It is a big industry in media.

Because part of the joy of life is shared pleasure, whether long-lasting or not. — jamalrob

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).

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

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.

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

Ok, let me rephrase then:

p1. If people have the desire to be special to someone then they should avoid multiple relationships and people who had multiple relationships.
p2. Some people have this desire.
c. Therefore some people should avoid multiple relationships and people who had multiple relationships.

That works but that wasn't what you wrote initially as that was a general argument against promiscuity. As an argument against that it doesn't work. The argument that people should act in accordance with their desires - you won't have an argument there and that's not the argument that seems to be on the table either.

But I concede your point.
You are not religiously opposed to promiscuity.
Fine. — m-theory

Thanks.

Utter nonsense.
They celibate monogamy all the time in the US.
It is a big industry in media. — 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.

Yes. — Agustino

The literature on the matter isn't conclusive.

Casual Sex and Psychological Health Among Young Adults: Is Having “Friends with Benefits” Emotionally Damaging?:
"Young adults who engage in casual sexual encounters do not appear to be at greater risk for harmful psychological outcomes than sexually active young adults in more committed relationships."

Risky Business: Is There an Association between Casual Sex and Mental Health among Emerging Adults?:
"For emerging-adult college students, engaging in casual sex may elevate risk for negative psychological outcomes."

Who Benefits From Casual Sex? The Moderating Role of Sociosexuality:
"Sociosexually unrestricted students typically reported higher well-being after having casual sex compared to not having casual sex; there were no such differences among restricted individuals."

Does casual sex harm college students' well-being? A longitudinal investigation of the role of motivation.:
"After controlling for demographics, personality traits (i.e., neuroticism and extraversion), prior casual and romantic sex, and T1 well-being, having genital hookups between T1 and T3 for non-autonomous reasons (i.e., due to self-imposed pressures, external contingencies and controls, or complete lack of intentionality) was linked to lower self-esteem, higher depression and anxiety, and more physical symptoms. Autonomous hookup motivation (i.e., emanating from one's self) was not linked to any outcomes. Compared to peers without hookups, those with high non-autonomy in their hookups typically had inferior well-being; this was not true of those with low non-autonomy hookups."

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.

Benkei's summary is quite apt: whatever works for you. For some people casual sex is a bad thing, but for others it's a good thing (and for some it's neutral).

because a one-night stand doesn't intend to be a permanent bond from the beginning — Agustino

This is not necessarily so, often the parties involved don't agree before hand that this sexual encounter shall only happen once and shall not lead to any bonding.

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

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.

They make movies all the time where two people fall and love and live happily ever after.

This is not necessarily often the parties involved don't agree before hand that this sexual encounter shall only happen once and shall not lead to any bonding. — m-theory

Not explicitly, but implicitly the agreement is always there, otherwise it wouldn't be a one-night stand.

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

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 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

Plus a majority of women regret the age at which they lose their virginity in hindsight. Even when culturally accepted for this to happen around 16 they by and large indicate to prefer to have waited until their 20s.

If you agreed to it previously then you contradicted yourself when you said "No they couldn't argue so".

Indeed, which shows my point - culture determines the attitudes that most people have towards sex. It's not biological in other words.

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.

If you agreed to it previously then you contradicted yourself when you said "No they couldn't argue so". — jamalrob

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.

Indeed, which shows my point - culture determines the attitudes that most people have towards sex. It's not biological in other words. — Agustino

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.

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.

I'm not sure how there can be a culture-independent truth about the psychological effects of casual sex if the psychological effects of casual sex are culture-dependent.

Are you now moving on to a non-psychological (and also non-spiritual) argument against casual sex?

sex may be a pleasure, but the potential risks associated with it, especially in a casual setting, always outweigh the potential benefits — Agustino

Prima facie false, as false as the claim that the risks of rock climbing always outweigh the benefits.

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

Fine. I made no claim that people had casual sex in order to educate themselves on monogamy.

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.

Prima facie false, as false as the claim that the risks of rock climbing outweigh the benefits. — jamalrob

Potentially, but it is an argument that has been used by materialists :P

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

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.

So are you now saying that some non-psychological (and non-spiritual) fact makes it wrong?

I don't know if this is back-peddling or shotgun argumentation or what.

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

Being human, is thankfully, dependent on culture. Otherwise we'd just be animals.

Nope, that process of horizontal gene transfer is different than reproduction. Bacteria don't reproduce through sex — Agustino

Are you sure?

Well - it doesn't, and it's such a simplistic reductionism to think it does. — Agustino

How so? Do you have a grander, truer (not sure if that's a word) view on the issue?

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

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?

Are you sure? — TheMadFool

That's what I meant by horizontal gene transfer - if you read the wiki it will even say that in fact.

How so? Do you have a grander, truer (not sure if that's a word) view on the issue? — TheMadFool

Yes. Sex does not dominate most of human interaction.

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

No, but is that relevant? Is your argument now "casual sex is wrong because there could be (unrecognized) negative psychological consequences (either now or in the future)"? If so then that same reasoning can be used to argue against marrying someone you love and having sex with them.