Why Not Sexual Moderation?

Great Debates
21

Gee Alan Smithee, you need some imagination. I’ve done all sorts of things with no chance of reproduction. And I’m not even gay - my gay/lesbian/bi-sexual friends can have even more fun without risk of reproduction. And I’m not a big proponent of casual sex. Course, maybe you think Clinton was telling the truth about Monica because there was no penetration?

To address the OP, I think most adults believe in moderation in sex. That is to say, they wouldn’t get laid every night by a different good looking stranger even if they could. But most adults seem to think that in addition to lovemaking, there is a place in the world (perhaps not their world) for casual sex. And perhaps a realistic appraisal of sometimes its hard to seperate lasting love from the potential of love from infatuation and even just “yummy.”

Looking back on the boyfriends I had back when I was single, I though there was “something” worthwhile there at the time with all of them. Now, there are a couple of them where I wonder what I was thinking. Not that I regret the sex. Its just that at 35 I think I could potential categorize “something” much better than I could at 19.

I also think our society is “sex saturated” Its easy to convince yourself that everyone else is horny as hell and getting some. And the only ones that aren’t are complete prudes. But in truth, its probably a bell curve.

22

First of all, I wouldn’t be swinging from a chandelier or talking dirty because I’d probably break the chandelier and I’m not fond of dirty talk. I’d probably end up falling asleep or taking a really long shower afterwards.

Second, while I believe casual sex is a bad idea, other people’s lives are none of my business, and I don’t chastise others for doing that. A friend of mine has slept around basically since she was 13, and while I don’t approve of it, she always uses protection (with her male partners anyway), and I pretty much leave her alone about it.

Third, while I know I’m young, that doesn’t mean I’m less qualified to offer my opinions than those who are older and have more experience. I know Dangerosa didn’t intend to imply that, and I know that when I’m 35 I’ll probably have a better idea of what I’m talking about. My opinion is my opinion, and it will change as I change.

I do agree with the bell curve thing though, that’s probably how people are, even though society likes to emphasize the extremes (pimp vs. nun).

Also, as for birth control and related matters, I believe that heterosexual couples should always use some form of contraceptives unless they intend to have a child or are open to the idea. However, if an “accident” happens, they need to be responsible for their actions and raise the child, not abort it because they slipped up. As for protective methods in homosexual couples, it’s all a matter of disease prevention (disease prevention is important to heterosexuals too, but homosexuals don’t need birth control so this is the reason why they should use protection). Of course, if both partners are tested, proven disease-free, and trust each other, protection should be optional. It’s still a good idea, no matter what.

23

I also think you can just have “casual” sex with your life partner. It’s not always “making love” for us, and we’ve been together for 15 years. Sometimes we (or one of us) just feels like tearing one off, just for the sake of sex. Nothing wrong with that, either!

24

Oh, well that kind of “casual sex” is fine… woohoo!

25

—then we have to accept pregnancy as a possible result of nearly every act of heterosexual intercourse.—

Whoa. You know there’s more to sex than just, uh, different positions, right?

—Well, you don’t have to experience something to have an opinion on it. Do you have to experience eating shit to think it’s gross?—

While true, this is irrelevant. Of course you can have opinions on it… but the point is whether the opinion is informed. While I dont like everything, I can almost always at least get smoe sense of why other people like things. The mere fact that there are some people out there who like to eat shit suggests to me that I’m missing something. So, yeah, lack of experience IS a problem with justifying your judgement.

26

Sure, we could just agree to disagree, but what would be the fun in that? :wink:

I accept that we can’t avoid all risk in life, and that trying to do so is foolish. I know that when I drive, there is some probability that I will kill someone. Since it is very dificult to live a normal life in the US without driving (outside of large cities, anyway), I accept that risk, but I also go to some great expense to purchase insurance, so that should the risk become real, I can be as responsable for my actions as possible. If I couldn’t do this, I don’t think I would drive.

Casual sex, without some knowledge of how your partner would behave if a child were produced, seems to me like driving without insurance. Worse, because, 1) sex is (sorry) not necessary for an otherwise normal life, 2) the commitment you abrogate (to care for another human) is ongoing in a way your commitment to the family of someone you kill is usually not, and 3) there is absolutely no assumption of risk on the part of the potential victim (the unwanted child), whereas anyone who leaves their house accepts that a car might hit them.

Given these things, I don’t see how casual sex (or even loving sex in a non-committed relationship) can be morally justified.

Put another way, it’s not the sex itself that is immoral or irresponsable. But negecting to take steps to care for a child that might result (including getting to know what kind of parent your partner would make before engaing in sex) seems to fall under any reasonable definition of irresponablity.

And of course I’m aware that there is more to sex than intercourse. I thought it was clear that that is what I meant. Or do you think “intercourse,” like “sex”, is a general term for more than . . . well, I’m not sure what to call it if “intercourse” isn’t specific enough? Am I wrong that “intercourse” is the more specific term?

Anyway, nothing I said was meant to apply to blow-jobs, etc. I’m curious how common that form of abstinance (“everything but”) really is.

27

Sorry, last two paragraphs were directed to Apos and Dangerosa, not cuauhtemoc. I’m sure you figured that out, though!

28

With people that know what they’re doing, and use multiple forms, the risk of pregnancy is pretty vanishingly small. Most of the “error” result from misuse, stupidity, or even simply not using any contrception at all and then blaming it for failing.

Your other points, which attempt to develop sex as being somehow different from other forms of risk, all seem pretty weak. I just don’t agree that casual sex is that different from other risks, especially given that, with any intelligence, the risk can be pretty darn small.

But hey, maybe this is as good a reason as any to encourage more homosexual sex. You’ve sold me Alan. From now on, anal sex only for me!

As Bill O’Reily is fond of saying: “I want to go to a gay bathhouse!”

29

Alan, your analogy is all messed up.

You seem to imply that auto insurance somehow mitigates the risk of driving. It does not.

You seem to imply that the risk of driving is to someone else’s health. While it is, it is a greater risk to your own health (your more likely to kill yourself than someone else).

In the analogy, birth control/STD protection, in terms of mitigating risk of pregnancy, is more like safe driving techniques, in terms of mitigating risk of a fatal accident (driving with your eyes open, within reasonable speeds, on your side of road, two hands on the wheel, etc).

Perhaps unfortunate, it would seem that the analogy to auto insurance would be abortion or adoption. It is what you rely on when the risk is actualized.

And, btw, your comment about the potential victim (the unwanted child) is a dead giveaway (pardon the pun) on your position on abortion. Unless you meant the unwanted zygote (the risk of heterosexual intercourse is a pregnancy - a fertilized egg - a zygote; the risk of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is an unwanted child).

Further, sex is a component of a normal life.

By your logic, even driving with the safest driving habits is not “morally justifiable”, because, hey, accidents happen, and someone might get killed. It’s quite specious.

30

Driving, even with less than impeccable skill, is not morally unjustifiable. Refusing to take steps to ensure that, should an accident happen (however good a driver you think you are), you will be in a possition to do the right thing (ie, pay damages), is. It is also illegal in almost every, if not every, state.

Having sex, even unprotected sex, is not immoral. Refusing to take steps to ensure that, should an “accident” happen (however unlikely it is), you will be in a position to do the right thing (ie, raise the child in a loving family), is.

I wasn’t trying to conceal my opinion on abotion, just avoid a hijack. I think abortion is justifiable (not that anyone need to justify a specific case of it to me!) under extreme circumstances. It is not, however, morally neutral. (I think most people would agree with me here.) I further believe that not having bothered to find out what sort of person your partner is or how they might raise a child does not, in and of itself, present a moral justification for abortion. In any event, a child is as much a potential result of conception as a feotus is. Especially if you are a man, you need to know what your partner plans on doing, because you might not have much control.

Finally, I think it is interesting that no one else had mentioned conception in a thread about the morality of sex (which is what I took the OP to ask about, in part.)

31

Alan, You continue to twist the analogy into a specious argument. Let’s walk through the analogy:

The act of driving is like the act of sexual intercourse without reproductive intent.

The risk, whenever you drive, is that someone gets killed. The risk, whenver you have sexual intercourse without reproductive intent, is that you create an unwanted pregnancy.

To minimize the risk that someone gets killed when you drive, you drive safely. You pay attention to the road. You obey traffic laws. You stay sober. You wear your seat belt. You keep your vehicle in good working order.

To minimize the risk of an unwanted pregnancy from sexual intercourse with reproductive intent, you practice safe sex. He gets a vasectomy. She gets a tubal ligation. Or, the two individuals utilize any number of birth control options available.

To completely eliminate the risk of someone getting killed when you drive, don’t drive. To completely eliminate the risk of someone getting pregnant when you have sexual intercourse without reproductive intent, you don’t have sex.

IF, you are comfortable accepting the risk after you have taken steps to minimize it, you could still find yourself in the worst case. If you drive, the worst case is that you kill someone else, or almost as bad, you kill yourself. If you have sexual intercourse without reproductive intent, the worst case is that you create an unwanted pregnancy*, where one of three courses of action may happen: terminate the pregnancy; carry to term and put up for adoption; commit to raising a child.

Now, somehow, you argue that the fact that you may carry liability insurance makes driving morally justifiable, but having sexual intercourse without reproductive intent is not morally justifiable. And I just don’t see it. It is quite easy to see that driving has much more dramatic potential moral consequences.

If, however, you are simply arguing that anyone having sexual intercourse without reproductive intent must understand the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, and be prepared to accept the responsibilities for that possibility, for it to be a moral act, then I’m with you. But that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying.

*[sub]Yes, for the purposes of this analogy, I am not addressing the risk of AIDS or other STDs, since I am only addressing the issues that Alan raised in the analogy he originally used.[/sub]

32

I sure don’t want to start an abortion debate, but I have to address this - there are a few available options in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, and raising an unwanted child is only one of them. How is it irresponsible to choose one of the alternatives?

If I’m carrying a jug of chemicals at work, and I accidentally spill something on the carpet, the first thing I’m going to do is try to minimize the damage. Maybe I can soak up the spill before it destroys the whole carpet.

It’s not irresponsible to try to keep a bad thing from getting worse - my boss would sure be happier if I said “sorry, I ruined one square foot of the carpet” than if I threw up my hands, didn’t try to help the situation, and said “I ruined the entire carpet in the break room, but I take full responsibility for the damage!”

33

That is essentially what I’m saying. (Let’s drop the driving analogy; it seems to be obscuring my argument rather than clarifying it.)

Where I differ from what everyone else seems to be saying is that I believe understanding and accepting the risk and moral concequences of IWORI (intercourse without reproductive intent) goes far beyond mearly minimizing the risk. (Which I agree can be done quite effectively.) I think truely understanding and accepting the moral concequences of IWORI precludes “casual” sex (except as EchoKitty defined it) and probably (though I can’t be sure since it hasn’t been discussed much) most of what the OP would consider “moderate” sex.

34

Except that it is possible to mitigate the risks of pregnancy, accidentally get preganant, and take responsbility in a fashion that is best for the child.

Some people are well equiped to raised children without a husband (or a wife). I have a girlfriend with an adopted child. She is financially very well off. She has a close knit family and friend circle to help her with her daughter. If anything tragic were to happen to her, the little girl would be welcomed into a home she knows well. I don’t see anything irresponsible about her decision to parent.

My husband and I, the parents of two and in a stable marriage, have decided our family is big enough. We have sex without reproductive intent all the time (OK, as often as the parents of two small children do). Would not wanting more children preclude a sexual relationship? Our daughter, btw, was a surprise, no reproductive intent there at all.

Some people make adoption plans - and as an adoptive parent myself, I can’t really see too much bad in this (although, I’m the first to admit that adoption is a bittersweet option for all involved). It certainly doesn’t seem irresponsible to make an adoption plan for your child - especially given the effort some birth mothers take in picking their childs parents and staying in touch.

I think you are right in that sex cannot ever be completely removed from the possibility of reproduction. And anyone undertaking casual sex had better have a plan in mind for what would happen if the unplanned happened despite use of the pill, the condom, and only having sex during unfertile times of the month.

35

My first thought when I saw the title of this thread was, “Sounds like a lot of fun, but I barely have enough time to moderate IMHO!”

Dangerosa, your last paragraph only applies if you limit the definition of “sex” to “penetration of the vagina with the penis”, and the previous postings clearly give some of the many ways sexual pleasure may be obtained other than coitus non-interruptus.

36

Yep, one of the previous posts that sex is not limited to penetration was mine. I was responding to Alan’s post. But I agree, lots of fun to be had where you don’t need to worry about making babies. In fact, whole classes of people can do anything they want without ever having to worry about the reproductive end, including penetration - gays, lesbians (although in those cases where gays and/or lesbians involve both penis and vagina at the same time, there is cause for concern), post-menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies…

37

—although in those cases where gays and/or lesbians involve both penis and vagina at the same time…—

What? Color me confused…

38

Me, too, but about more than gay and lesbian hermaphradites. . . .

Dangerosa, I agree with everything you wrote up to the last paragraph. I’m assuming you thought you were disagreeing with me, which leads me to think I’m being even less clear in expressing myself than usual.

I have never claimed that IWRI is immoral. Of course all of what you describe are possable, and may be moral (caveats to come, though. . . .) It’s that last paragraph that I’m not sure about. If one is a man (as I am) one doen’t really have much control over what happens in case of a pregnancy. For a man to be able to make responsable plans for such an event, he must necessarily get to know his potential partner, before having intercourse, far better than the term “casual sex” suggests to me. For a woman, the problems are slightly different. If she gets pregnant following casual sex, is it moral for her to make a descision without informing the father? (You may say yes, but it’s far from a given.) If the father is told/finds out, he might have different ideas, and might try (succesfully or unsuccesfully) to get legal sanction for them. (This is true regardless of what descision is made–if the mother decides to keep the child, the father might want contact.) Unless all this has been discussed in detail beforehand (between the partners), I don’t think either partner is really acting morally.

I suppose if “casual sex” really means “highly formal sex” (“Please sign this form renouncing all rights of parental control, authorizing automatic payments to be charged to your credit card in case child support is required and indemnifying other party or parties involved against any injuries caused by inadequately mounted lighting fixtures.”) then you’ve fulfilled the letter of the law, so to speak, but I don’t see that working out well IRL.

As for the OP, (What’s wrong with sexual moderation?), well nothing, necessarily. I still see a loving and committed marriage in which all these issues have been discussed thoroughly as the gold-standard for meeting the moral obligations of having intercourse (with or without reproductive intent). However, I’ve never claimed it was the only way of doing so. Since none of this was even mentioned by the OP or anyone else untill I brought it up, my answer to the OP is, “Potentially, quite a lot!”

39

I’m still curious, BTW, since none of this has to do with sex other than heterosexual intercourse, do many people abstain from intercourse only? I’m sure teenagers do, or at least try to, and obviously gays and lesbians abstain from heterosexual intercourse, but other thatn that, do many people practice, non-intercourse sex only as a matter of morals? My personal impression would be no, but that’s based on woefully few data.

40

My husband and I had an active sex life for almost a year that didn’t involve intercourse when we started seeing one another. Neither of us was a sexual prude, but the relationship was non-monogamous and I don’t believe in penetration in a non-monogamous relationship.

The boyfriend I had before him did everything but and was a 35 year old virgin.

My cousin and her husband would spend the night together, and she hymen intact on her wedding night.