And in lieu of evidence to the contrary, the claim that sex isn't always a bad thing (in terms of psychological effects) is more justified than the claim that it's always a bad thing. — Michael

I agree sex isn't always a bad thing in terms of psychological effects. I don't take the hardcore Epicurean position that the Sage will never engage in sex.

I didn't say that it proves it. I'm only saying that it suggests it. — Michael

Just as much as it suggests all other explanations which are congruent with the facts :P

Just saw his links now. He says that the evidence isn't conclusive and he cites studies that reach neutral conclusions as well as the conclusion that there are psychological _benefits_ to casual sex. — Terrapin Station

Perceived psychological benefits exist in cultures which are liberal towards sex - just as psychological harm as a result of it exists in cultures which are conservative towards sex. All this tells is that human perception (NOOOOT psychological reality) is to a large degree governed by culture.

No, it might be mistaken. But it might not be. These people might genuinely have not suffered (and will not suffer) negative psychological consequences. You seem to be shifting the burden of proof or arguing from ignorance or moving the goalposts. — Michael

No I obviously don't believe just that it might be mistaken, I have reasons to think it is mistaken. But with regards to where you are, it is first important to accept the idea that they (your explanations) might be mistaken, and to stop saying that the evidence proves X, when in fact it doesn't.

Michael did, you can check his links.

What do you mean by this Augustino? — jamalrob

I mean to say that some people - Epicurus for one - found that the sage should abstain from sex, as it leads to potentially damaging emotions more frequently than to pleasure, and avoiding pain is more important than gaining pleasure. Now you can disagree with him, and I do disagree with the idea that one should never have sex, but that doesn't mean it's not rational within its own limited scope. I agree with Epicurus for example - but think there's some other kind of sex, which isn't described accurately in this way - committed, non-casual sex.

You can't defend your claim "casual sex is wrong because it has negative psychological consequences" from the attack "the evidence shows that casual sex doesn't (always) have negative psychological consequences" by simply asserting that the evidence might be mistaken. — Michael

No the evidence isn't mistaken. The evidence is what it is. The explanation of the evidence is mistaken - the mechanism by which such evidence occurs is mistaken.

So? How does that show that casual sex is wrong? — Michael

No that doesn't show it is wrong, but it shows that it is possible to condemn casual sex on psychological grounds - contrary to what you claimed the evidence proved.

No, but is that relevant? Is your argument now "casual sex is wrong because there could be negative psychological consequences (either now or in the future)"? — Michael

No the argument is that you could perceive negative psychological consequences from, say, instance X of casual sex that you don't currently perceive.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

The "mystical" part is problematic. Unless the rest of us believe in such a thing then all your arguments are going to fall flat. It would be like arguing with an atheist that we shouldn't do something because God forbids it; given that they reject your premise the argument won't convince them how to behave. — Michael

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.

Is this bond just some sort of psychological thing? Or by "spiritual" do you mean it in the mystical sense (as non-physical and non-psychological)? — Michael

It is psychological and mystical. Or rather it has both dimensions.

You seem to claim that desire for specialness is better to have because it's natural. — Benkei

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. 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.

So you think it's impossible to form a temporary bond, one that lasts only for one night? — jamalrob

No it is possible, but as you say it is temporary, and hence it is a "broken bond" - as in always already broken.

Or do you think temporary bonds are insignificant or pointless (or something else bad)? — jamalrob

Well they are insignificant and pointless on the one hand (no big thing gained, why waste all the effort merely for physical pleasure - as Epicurus would put it - avoid sex, bigger source of problems than of pleasures), and on the other, they destroy the very capacity for forming permanent bonds, and thus take away a greater good.

And what negative aspects are you referring to? And does this apply to all one-night stands or just some or most of them? — jamalrob

All non-committed relationships.

Your views are actually fairly common in western culture in my experience, especially among the religious. — m-theory

Not true. I don't view sex between people who don't get married as immoral so long as they are life-long devoted to each other, faithful and live monogamous lives together (or at minimum intend to do so). The religious do view that as problematic.

You on the other hand m-theory, you sit there with what everyone else is thinking. That in itself should have you worried - that everyone else is thinking so.

That is just what your ideology is telling you. — m-theory

Yeah, pity that I arrived at this "ideology" independently through my own thinking - an ideology which is opposed by my Western culture, and which I pretty much could not have found propounded, and even if I did, I could not have found it advantageous to believe. So either I'm an idiot, or I see certain advantages in holding it that you don't. I think the latter.

What is the spiritual dimension of sex, and do you think one explore this dimension, or do justice to it, in a one-night stand? — jamalrob

Well they could explore the negative aspects of it, that's for sure >:O

As for what the spiritual dimension is, it's the bond (or in the case of one-night stand, the broken bond) that is created with the other.

No, that is what my body tells me. — m-theory

No it's really what you THINK you're body has been telling you. I used to think the same when I was a teenager. I was wrong. Our culture has deceived us, to the point we're not even able to see its effects anymore.

Culture is not what informs people to have sex, biology does. — m-theory

That's what your culture has been telling you ;)

You are so very melodramatic.
You don't have to worship sex to have your first experience be an awkward disappointment. — m-theory

No you must simply take heed of what your culture is telling you "have sex have sex have sex" without understanding the spiritual dimension that's always involved in sex, and you're gonna end up with a not so great experience. Quite simple. Has nothing to do with being a virgin - in other words, your experience isn't lacking because you're a virgin, it's lacking because you're an idiot.

Well for a lot of people it is not nearly as special as thought it was going to be. — m-theory

Yes, for materialist hedonists who believe that sex is God, yes it's not that special, because they never see the spiritual dimension of it. That's obvious.

Being married does not automatically make sex more special either. — m-theory

No, it doesn't necessarily make it more special.

Also people that are not saving themselves for sex can be virgins too. — m-theory

Ehmmm did I ever say they can't?

Being a virgin does not automatically make sex special. — m-theory

No, not automatically. It's not a sufficient condition for that.

In fact quite the opposite is often true, people have idealistic views about sex as virgins and are often disappointed by there first experience with it. — m-theory

Well maybe it wasn't special for you because you wasted it. But for me, when I had sex with my first girlfriend, it was certainly a very special moment. I've never wasted sex - maybe I made mistakes with regards to it, but I've never wasted it.

I think what you are trying to communicate is the idea that when you are deeply in love with a person the sex is special. — m-theory

Being deeply in love is not sufficient in and of itself.

What about people that don't want long term relationships but still want to have sex? — m-theory

They're a dangerous element for the rest of society that has to be controlled - simple.

Now the fact that someone has had sex before isn't such a big deal in itself. It's more about how they've had sex. For example, it's more important that they have avoided casual sex, but if they had sex in long-term relationships before marriage, not such a big deal. Still a problem - but not as big. Why? Because in a long-term relationship, they maybe have thought they'd get married to that person, and well, it didn't work out. It's not like they intended to do something immoral. But on the other hand, someone who engages in promiscuous sex intends something immoral - aims for the wrong thing. That's far worse.

No it doesn't.
The definition of a virgin is a person that has not had sex before.
Not a person who it is more special to have sex with. — m-theory

By definition a virgin (applied to someone who intends to get married) is someone who has saved sex for marriage

Neither does being a virgin. — m-theory

Well it does have to do with being sexually special one towards another - that's by definition.

I can't seem to interpret this in any other way than an appeal to nature and that would be a fallacy. — Benkei

A natural desire. You have a natural desire for food. In what sense is that seeking to fulfill that a fallacy?

lol
You know it can be argued that if your partner is more experienced then they will be better at sex. — m-theory

Yeah, but being better at sex has nothing to do with being special to one another.

Ah
The truth comes out.

That is only an issue for insecure people. — m-theory

Not at all. It's a natural desire of the human being, which has nothing to do with insecurity. The desire for specialness with your partner is a desire that is natural to the human being. But it seems you don't care about that, you'd much rather have your tiny instrument pleasured by some random women. >:O

No it wouldn't. — m-theory

Right it would be better that your partner gets fucked by hundreds of people before you get married to him/her - that sounds nice! Sure! >:O

Well in a historical context the youth of today are prudes.
Heck not a 100 years ago and you would be married off with kids by 15. — m-theory

*facepalm* - yes it would be better to get married at 15 and have as much sex as you want, then to get married at 30, and until then engage in promiscuous sex.

Well I guess some people are still uptight about sex, but I mean as a culture we are not as uptight as other cultures. — m-theory

Yes which is unfortunate that we're not as uptight as other cultures. They have a little bit more reason left in them compared to us.

Teenagers interested in sex you say?
Well that certainly is unnatural.
The only explanation must be our oversexed culture. — m-theory

Their mere curiosity isn't the issue. It's their unthoughtful engagement in sex at a young age that is the issue - that is motivated by our oversexed culture.