The morality of casual sex

[Galloism]

Higher levels of sexual promiscuity correlates with higher rates of drug abuse and depression, so aside from the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancy you're also doing your mental health a disservice if you behave like a skank.

Blame the man-whores who also have sex outside of marriage then.

I always love when someone acts sexist, and then you come along and act sexist right back.

I can never tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.

[New haven america]

Annoying.

Needing a metaphorical kick in the balls. I have happily provided said kick when faced with such a person.

Likewise, I also don't get the appeal of super confident and quirky people (Like Chris Pratt or Anna Kendrick).

It just feels fake or like they're trying to hide something. (In the former's case, that was true, as he has a history of being a pretty conservative and homophobic Christian)

[New haven america]

For one, the positive correlation that divorce has with one's number of sexual partners.

(Image)

Correlation =/= Causation.

Besides, the real reason for wanting to keep people, specifically women, from casual sex is the fear that if they have any experiences they can compare, they may realize their lover may not be that good.

The answer is not to keep people ignorant, it's to have good/put effort into improving one's technique.

Also kinda goes against his point because the graph itself says the ideal number of partners someone should've had before marriage is 1->4.

[Katganistan]

I do. And in what world does talking about the logistics of sex not become explicit?

Well insert flap A into slot B is not really explicit, we could be talking about sex or assembling IKEA furniture.

Or Nanny Ogg.

[Galloism]

I do. And in what world does talking about the logistics of sex not become explicit?

Well insert flap A into slot B is not really explicit, we could be talking about sex or assembling IKEA furniture.

Or doing both at the same time.

[Katganistan]

If only. At least the sex-positive group doesn't have a problem with people not being casually intimate.

The way I see it is this: what two or three or four consenting adults do (as long as there’s no coercion) is none of my business.

Agreed, and as a corollary: if you don't like casual sex, you do you, and I'm cool with that, too.

Only thing which bothers me really is that how you constantly say that people who have sex are disgusting and immoral yourself, while having also been mocked in your life. How you don't make the connection and see that people who are sex positive also can feel bad if you treat them negatively.

[New haven america]

When being sexually averse is classified as a mental disorder, then it's not just my experience.

I am sorry you have had such experiences. That's a good example why we need to talk about tolerance towards LGBT+ people (which does include asexuals). Nobody should mock you, or anyone for not wanting to have sex.

Only thing which bothers me really is that how you constantly say that people who have sex are disgusting and immoral yourself, while having also been mocked in your life. How you don't make the connection and see that people who are sex positive also can feel bad if you treat them negatively.

That tends to be pretty common among those who've been victimized. They look for targets to take out their feelings of persecution on in order to feel some semblance of power or control in their life.

This becomes especially problematic when paired with moral and religious idealism.

[Katganistan]

This is like saying there's no point in oranges, unless your intention is vitamin C.

Sure, if you're looking for vitamin C. Oranges are good. They're also good if you're not vitamin deficient.

What's the point of dating without the intention of marriage? That sounds like a colossal waste of time, energy, and money.

Companionship?
Shopping around?
Better than a sharp stick in the eye?
It's Tuesday?

[Katganistan]

So no condoms and no abortions? Should people have sex only for having kids then? Or having sex, and then when they get pregnant always raising up the kids? I do get the point that religious people are against abortions, but against condoms as well?

Catholics are opposed to contraception and abortion, preferring natural family planning.

Well it's natural that if you are not planning a family, you use contraception and if you get pregnant anyway, you consider abortion.

[New haven america]

Catholics are opposed to contraception and abortion, preferring natural family planning.

Well it's natural that if you are not planning a family, you use contraception and if you get pregnant anyway, you consider abortion.

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

[Katganistan]

Yes it is. The woman can say. "No, I don't want to become pregnant. Wear a condom." as the man can say, "No, I'm not ready to be a father yet. I'll just get a condom."

Expecting abstinence from couples in long-term and loving relationships, who do not want children, is like expecting snow to fall on a sunny day in July.

Still, sex and how consent to that does not equal consent to pregnancy is probably better discussed in the Abortion thread.

Even if unlikely, every couple should be open to the possibility of having children.

If they are financially or emotionally or physically unable?
If there is a reason to not wish to potentially pass a genetic disorder along?
If they are not in it for the long term?

No.

[Katganistan]

Yeah? Unless the participants were somehow married without knowing it?

Do you actually know what adultery is?

Adultery is having sex with someone other than your spouse, when you are married.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

what damage?

For one, the positive correlation that divorce has with one's number of sexual partners.

Yeah there's a positive correlation. But what it most likely shows is that there are people who (a) save themselves for marriage AND (b) stick with a marriage even if it's not that good for them. People who follow the teachings of the Catholic church perhaps?

I find it more interesting how the marriages last LONGER with 3, 4 or up to 9 premarital partners, than they do with 2. That's an advertisement for shopping around, imo.

[The Emerald Legion]

I'm personally an insular, antisocial person. I'm not interested in having sex with lots of people to explore people and partners.

At the same time, not everyone is me, and I don't see a reason to care unless they somehow involve me, by very nature of that same insularity that makes me unwilling to engage in casual sex.

[Bromagia]

I wouldn't say casual sex is necessarily immoral. It is, as with most things, wise to be moderate in one's sexual appetites given the consequences of recklessness.

For one, the positive correlation that divorce has with one's number of sexual partners.

(Image)

Yeah there's a positive correlation. But what it most likely shows is that there are people who (a) save themselves for marriage AND (b) stick with a marriage even if it's not that good for them. People who follow the teachings of the Catholic church perhaps?

I find it more interesting how the marriages last LONGER with 3, 4 or up to 9 premarital partners, than they do with 2. That's an advertisement for shopping around, imo.

I wonder if they counted all marriages or just first marriages when figuring the divorce percentage. Typically, including all marriages when examining divorce gives counterintuitive data. Divorcees are more likely to remarry and divorce again. Sometimes several times.

I'm personally an insular, antisocial person. I'm not interested in having sex with lots of people to explore people and partners.

At the same time, not everyone is me, and I don't see a reason to care unless they somehow involve me, by very nature of that same insularity that makes me unwilling to engage in casual sex.

I'm a moderately gregarious person and I have no interest in casual sex, either. Sex with one person suits me fine. I'm more interested in intimacy than physical sensation or variety.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The way I see it is this: what two or three or four consenting adults do (as long as there’s no coercion) is none of my business.

Agreed, and as a corollary: if you don't like casual sex, you do you, and I'm cool with that, too.

Only thing which bothers me really is that how you constantly say that people who have sex are disgusting and immoral yourself, while having also been mocked in your life. How you don't make the connection and see that people who are sex positive also can feel bad if you treat them negatively.

Because they are the ones who control the culture in which the rest of us have to live.

That is to say, prejudice against asexuals is in large part a creation of the sex-positivity movement.

[Bromagia]

nothing, because alphas are a myth invented by misogynistic PUAs and incels.

So what do you call a man who is super confident and domineering in personality?

Depends on whether he is competent in the current moment. A super confident and assertive person who is, either at that moment or in general, functionally useless is a jackass. A super confident and assertive person with high competence in the current moment is a leader or role model. Think Muhammad Ali. Undeniably skilled and talented and therefore confident and assertive. Compare this to Trump, who is supremely confident in any situation regardless of his actual competence.

'Alpha' is a narrow and loaded word.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I wouldn't say casual sex is necessarily immoral. It is, as with most things, wise to be moderate in one's sexual appetites given the consequences of recklessness.

Yeah there's a positive correlation. But what it most likely shows is that there are people who (a) save themselves for marriage AND (b) stick with a marriage even if it's not that good for them. People who follow the teachings of the Catholic church perhaps?

I find it more interesting how the marriages last LONGER with 3, 4 or up to 9 premarital partners, than they do with 2. That's an advertisement for shopping around, imo.

I wonder if they counted all marriages or just first marriages when figuring the divorce percentage. Typically, including all marriages when examining divorce gives counterintuitive data. Divorcees are more likely to remarry and divorce again. Sometimes several times.

Interesting thought. Because there were zero premarital encounters on the graph I assumed First Marriages. But I shouldn't have been so trusting of the source.

[Rojava Free State]

Higher levels of sexual promiscuity correlates with higher rates of drug abuse and depression, so aside from the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancy you're also doing your mental health a disservice if you behave like a skank.

I didn't know that once you start having more sex, you gotta do drugs.

What counts as drugs even tbh? I smoke pot but I don't drink very much and I smoke cigarettes only on certain occasions, and I altogether avoid things like heroin, cocaine, PCP and meth. Guess sex ruined my life guys. Now I smoke weed, which has been very dangerous to the contents of my fridge and has led to uncontrolled spastic laughter at things that aren't that funny. My life is basically over y'all.

[Rojava Free State]

So what do you call a man who is super confident and domineering in personality?

Depends on whether he is competent in the current moment. A super confident and assertive person who is, either at that moment or in general, functionally useless is a jackass. A super confident and assertive person with high competence in the current moment is a leader or role model. Think Muhammad Ali. Undeniably skilled and talented and therefore confident and assertive. Compare this to Trump, who is supremely confident in any situation regardless of his actual competence.

'Alpha' is a narrow and loaded word.

I'm talking about the Mohammed Ali types. Or a Dwight D Eisenhower.

Trump is just a tard, a bully and a pervert. Keep in mind too that I don't think that only men should be "assertive." I'm not a fan of submissive and weak willed women, and think our society's gender roles have made our girls weak. And by weak I mean a lack of the fighting spirit. My girlfriend once said she would treat me like a king and I said "just treat me like your boyfriend, and don't consider me the boss. This is a relationship, not a job." I would rather my girlfriend fight with me and bitch at me than go "yes I'll do whatever you say without question or suggestion because you are the man." We need to encourage both men and women to be a little tougher. Not to be kicking ass all the time or to be hitting the gym everyday, but to have resilience and confidence in themselves. Don't be my friend Brendan, who would allow a man to burglarize his home because "violence isn't the answer." And don't ever let anyone say they're automatically just "better than you." Yeah we're all better and worse at some things than others but no one is superior to you as a human being. No one is owed servitude by others. That's what I consider "being an alpha" to be. A balance of being confident and ready to act while still showing respect for other people and showing humility. I hope everyone understands my beliefs on this topic.

[Tarsonis]

Well it's natural that if you are not planning a family, you use contraception and if you get pregnant anyway, you consider abortion.

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

Please don't talk about Catholic doctrine if you don't have the faintest comprehension on what it is.

[Diopolis]

Well it's natural that if you are not planning a family, you use contraception and if you get pregnant anyway, you consider abortion.

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

This is not a good summation of Catholic doctrine.
The use of the creative power(aka almost any sexuality, with extremely limited and circumscribed exceptions) is reserved for making(or attempting to make) babies within marriage. This doesn't have to be a particularly likely result- old married couples can have sex, and say "if God wills it, we will have a baby". But there does have to be a de facto attempt.
Onanism, as you speak of, is not condemned as wasted seed. That's not a Catholic concept. It's viewed as a perversion of the sexual act which separates it from the marriage, not as a waste.

[Upper Nan]

Well it's natural that if you are not planning a family, you use contraception and if you get pregnant anyway, you consider abortion.

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

[Nakena]

Not in Catholicism.

Sex preventing or without the intention of conceiving a child is considered lust, even in marriage. And no pulling out either as that would be counted as a "Wasted Seed" which is also considered a sin. (But only appears in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which means that Christians shouldn't be following it, but I've screamed about how organized Christianity doesn't follow it's own teachings enough for the day)

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

His claim of the nazarene faith ignoring the OT has been repeatedly refuted by various people here.

[Upper Nan]

Why wouldn't Christians follow Leviticus and Deuteronomy? They still follow the Old Testament, just in a modified form from the Tanakh.

His claim of the nazarene faith ignoring the OT has been repeatedly refuted by various people here.

I'm still curious why he thinks it, though.