Is Casual Sex Immoral?
If so why? and if not why not?
This should be in Great Debates. A moderator will probably come around to move it for you.
Anyway, as for the question: no, I do not consider casual sex immoral if it doesn’t hurt anybody, precisely for that reason: it doesn’t hurt anybody.
:smack: Dammit ment to post that in Great Debates.
Mr Moderator,
If you would be so kind as to move it for me
sorry, and thank you.
Done.
Define “casual sex,” please.
It is if the particular moral code you subscribe to says it is and it isn’t if your moral code says otherwise. If you were looking for something obective or absolute, I don’t think you’ll find it (although you will find plenty of people who claim their favoured moral code is objective and absolute, of course).
Seems like more of an IMHO, imho.
Between consenting adults who take measures to protect themselves from STDs and unwanted pregnancy, I see nothing wrong with people having sex just for enjoyment.
That said, I don’t think it’s my cup of tea. I much prefer to have an emotional attachment to my partner as well.
Better yet, define morality. I see morality as those issues of right and wrong that are between you and your god or within yourself. (Ethics has to do with those issues of right and wrong that involve others.)
So is casual sex immoral? Well, if your god says so, then yes. If it’s a personal principle you don’t want to violate, then yes again.
I say “no”. It is just as immoral as any other pleasurable activity which might have negative consequences, such as eating cake, riding a motorbike or practising martial arts.
Yeah, but the negative consequences of “sex gone wrong” can be, and are usually much greater than those that are a result of eating cake or breking a block of wood with your hand. Riding a motorbike however seems to rank up there, but any damage done is limited to you for the most part, not a new life.
I’m not sure that makes casual sex immoral. It appears to be not on the same level as the things you mentioned. YMMV
I disagree. Responsible contraception (including post-coital chemical abortion) is hardly a great negative consequence even if practised lifelong, compared to the ruinously unhealthy obesity and heart disorders resultant from lifelong indugence in pastry, and the injuries from all kinds of adversarial competitive sports can be horrific. Even later term abortions are minor procedures compared to the surgery required for those other pleasures “gone wrong”.
And this is assumes that the reduction-divided cells sitting in the uterus after “sex gone wrong” are “a new life”. I’d say that they are only insofar as, say, a tumour or human hair is “a new life”.
I wasn’t speaking to abortion necessarily. More to an unplanned/unwanted birth into a situation where the mother would never consider having an abortion, but really doesn’t need another kid either. Now you have all sorts of issues of bringing a life into the world, who, through no choice of their own, are forced to grow up in a crappy home and suffer all of the consequences accordingly.
It happens, a lot. That is why there are Departments of Human Services to watch over the kids. Still not sure the act of casual sex is immoral, but perhaps bringing that unwanted life into the world is?
Then use contraception, including post-coital contraception. You seem to be arbitrarily concentrating on women who have casual sex without contraception which, I suggest, are pretty rare (and, it would seem, pretty clueless hypocrites).
I would say that irresponsible sex is immoral (whether it’s casual or not).
I would also say that while eating too much cake every day for years may be immoral, eating cake is not.
A slut shares his sexuality the way a philanthropist shares her money — because they have a lot to share, because it makes them happy to share it, because sharing makes the world a better place. …
If you walk up to a randomly selected individual and propose that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you, you will probably hear a lot of spluttering, argument, and “yahbuts” — AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, rape, the Madison Avenue commercialization of sexual desire, and so on. None of which changes the core idea. There is nothing in this world so terrific that it can’t be abused if you’re determined to do so: familial connections can be violated, sexual desire can be manipulated. Even chocolate can be abused. That doesn’t change the wonderfulness of any of these things: the danger lies in the motivation of the abuser, not the nature of the item. …
We measure the ethics of a good slut not by the number of his partners, but by the respect and care with which he treats them.
- Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt, *The Ethical Slut[/i[
Wow! That’s … that’s beautiful. [heavy sobbing]
Immoral in a spiritual vacuum- No.
Immoral if the Abrahamic God is The One True God- oh yeah, and in many other religious systems also.
One thing seems clear to me: there are circumstances under which casual sex definitely is immoral. (For example, if you’re having casual sex, perhaps under false pretenses, with someone who believes that it’s much more than casual.)
Is casual sex always, necessarily immoral? The obvious answer seems to be no: if it’s mutually enjoyable and no one is hurt, what’s the problem? But down through history, many societies, cultures, and religions have considered casual sex to be wrong or immoral, and it would be unwise to dismiss that mass of human opinion without at least trying to understand why they had a problem with it.
It may be that, in a similar way to how “bad money drives out good” (Gresham’s Law), the prevalence of casual sex “drives out” non-casual sex (i.e. meaningful, loving, bonding sex between long-term partners), so that the general societal view of sex is changed from something meaningful and special to something meaningless and mundane; long-term stable marriages/relationships are weakened or become less common; society as a whole becomes weaker and more fragmented; and we end up with something like Huxley’s Brave New World.
Anyway, that’s one theory as to what might be wrong with casual sex. I don’t know how valid (if at all) it is. And I don’t claim it’s the only theory.
Casual sex in and of itself is not immoral, IMHO. Not being willing to deal with the consequences of said sex is.