Rog Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Why? I am not in favour of adultery, infidelity or philandery but what is wrong with a bit of good old fornication, per your definition having sex for the sake of sex, as long as all parties are in agreement. From my perspective it is a physical activity from which many derive pleasure. Just like many other activities that we partake of for pleasure. Whilst sex may be a more private and intimate activity from my perspective it is everyones free choice with regard to how much or how little they partake. Just because 2 individuals want to give each other a good old rogering purely for pleasure and no other reason I see no problem with that at all. Has it occurred to you, and others who hold what can only be described as socially damaging values, that you are the social pathogen that AIDS acting as a social antibody targets? That it is the very anti-social values that you profess, and presumably adopt if given the opportunity, that diseases acting as antibodies communicated by such activities use as the means to take such people out of the gene pool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manin42 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Has it occurred to you, and others who hold what can only be described as socially damaging values, that you are the social pathogen that AIDS acting as a social antibody targets? That it is the very anti-social values that you profess, and presumably adopt if given the opportunity, that diseases acting as antibodies communicated by such activities use as the means to take such people out of the gene pool? I always thought from the safer sex information, Its not what you do but the way that you do it IE SAFER SEX = CONDOMS Does it really matter who your having sex with as long as its safe sex To say that SEX = AIDS= Not really Compatible with the Info that i read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I always thought from the safer sex information, Its not what you do but the way that you do it IE SAFER SEX = CONDOMS Does it really matter who your having sex with as long as its safe sex To say that SEX = AIDS= Not really Compatible with the Info that i read The purpose of condoms is, or formally was, primarily the prevention of contraception in a stable relationship. The use of condoms to provide protection from a disease that targets the people who engage in promiscuity, fornication, or philandery, although admirable in protecting a partner from being infected is clinically strongly advisable, but very morally wrong if simply used to protect oneself. And yes, it DOES matter who you engage in a sexual act with. It also matters WHY you engage in a sexual act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The purpose of condoms is, or formally was, primarily the prevention of contraception in a stable relationship. The primary purpose of condoms may have been the prevention of conception but their use was also widely recommended in the 16th Century as a protection against catching syphilis. I do not agree that the primary purpose was prevention of conception in a stable relationship. It was prevention of conception whether or not in a stable relationship is And yes, it DOES matter who you engage in a sexual act with. It also matters WHY you engage in a sexual act. What are your restrictions on who and why you should have sex with. From my perspective as long as it is consensual whether you have sex purely for pleasure or for procreation is irrelevent. We are an adult society and we should be able to make adult cchoices. Your view appears to be that sex should be purely for procreation and that it is otherwise somehow dirty and bad which I am sure must have made a great marriage for your wife. You may also wish to note that whilst I have these principles, they are based on the principle of choice and freedom. I see nothing morally wrong with any party wishing to have as much sex with as many parties as they want provided that it is consensual and that it is what they want. Equally though it is not a course of action I personally follow even before I married as generally I preferred more stable relationships. Maybe it was also a reflection that I was crap at chatting up. However I do believe it is a matter of personal choice not morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Why? I am not in favour of adultery, infidelity or philandery but what is wrong with a bit of good old fornication, per your definition having sex for the sake of sex, as long as all parties are in agreement. From my perspective it is a physical activity from which many derive pleasure. Just like many other activities that we partake of for pleasure. Whilst sex may be a more private and intimate activity from my perspective it is everyones free choice with regard to how much or how little they partake. Just because 2 individuals want to give each other a good old rogering purely for pleasure and no other reason I see no problem with that at all. Has it occurred to you, and others who hold what can only be described as socially damaging values, that you are the social pathogen that AIDS acting as a social antibody targets? That it is the very anti-social values that you profess, and presumably adopt if given the opportunity, that diseases acting as antibodies communicated by such activities use as the means to take such people out of the gene pool? Promiscuity and having lots of sex is not socially damaging. I don't know where you get this idea from at all. And I don't see why anyone would consider themselves as 'social pathogen' because some people have 'hang ups' about having sex simply for pleasure. People have been shagging about for millenia. AIDs is just a recent disease that CAN be transferred through having sex. It isn't intelligent and didn't form itself as a response to too much shagging in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And yes, it DOES matter who you engage in a sexual act with. It also matters WHY you engage in a sexual act.Well yes it does matter WHO and in some cases WHY. I mean you wouldn't have sex with someone if you KNEW they had something and were infectious. And you wouldn't do it if it was non-consenual. But this is not the point. You were talking about the immorality of just having sex for pleasure and having different 'partners' for sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And yes, it DOES matter who you engage in a sexual act with. It also matters WHY you engage in a sexual act.Well yes it does matter WHO and in some cases WHY. I mean you wouldn't have sex with someone if you KNEW they had something and were infectious. And you wouldn't do it if it was non-consenual. But this is not the point. You were talking about the immorality of just having sex for pleasure and having different 'partners' for sex. The immorality isn't in the sex for pleasure, it's in promiscuity and casual sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And yes, it DOES matter who you engage in a sexual act with. It also matters WHY you engage in a sexual act.Well yes it does matter WHO and in some cases WHY. I mean you wouldn't have sex with someone if you KNEW they had something and were infectious. And you wouldn't do it if it was non-consenual. But this is not the point. You were talking about the immorality of just having sex for pleasure and having different 'partners' for sex. The immorality isn't in the sex for pleasure, it's in promiscuity and casual sex. You really are a complete dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Polarized debate as always. I think most males definitely aspire to a world where everyone was open about sexual relations, could happily have some good enjoyable fun and not have to worry about the emotional and physical baggage which shagging produces. Evolutionary psychology is a pretty weak science, but the caveman does seem to be alive and well within us. Reality just isn't like that - sex produces complex emotions and ignoring that is just not going to work. Jealousy, hang-ups, obsessions, love, itches, sores, babies and consequences are an undeniable part of sex; and condoms and safe sex will only remove some of those things. Mixed motives mean that people can have consensual sex, but still be fucked up by it (and I do not think the double entendre here is just a coincidence - the fact that swear words are sexual does reveal some of the deep psychology assosciated with the act - no other word is so complex that you can say the "fucking fucker's fucking fucked" - not only the word but the act is complex). In these sorts of debates I find Rog over the top, with his fine Victorian definitions and moralizing, but also here Lost Login, aspiring for happy consensual coupling twice a day and three times on Tuesdays [Yes I'm paraphrasing!], is also hopelessly idealistic. Free, consensual sex can still create vast disagreements between the sexual partners; obsessions, poems, starry eyed loons, violent stalking etc can still result. There is a reason why free-love has never existed in human society; because love costs. And if you think you can break the emotional bind love and sex have on each other then I doubt you are human. Obsession, jealousy etc are vastly anti-social emotions, they are so deeply Narcissistic that humanity has known about them since almost before society existed - Freud using Greek bronze age myth helped explain something humanity knew, but had only ever been able to express in legend previously. Rog isn't totally wrong that a society which lets those emotions have free rein is likely to have problems. Even with honesty, decorum and condoms sex is an explosive emotion-laden thing. Humanity has been around for many millenia, we've only just descovered how to break the link between sex and procreation, it will be a long time before we learn how to deal with it. I'm no Victorian, but know that there is an emotional rollercoaster even with ideals as pedestrian as serial monogomy as one set of relationships break down and others start. The more partners and the greater the overlap the greater the risk that misunderstandings will generate emotions people can hardly control. Read the Courier for a month and you'll see the consequences of that. Are people really saying this is all simple, and that happy consensual sex can be consequence free? That to me implies incredible sexual inexperience, or a Narcissistic selfishness which borders on the sociopathic . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And yes, it DOES matter who you engage in a sexual act with. It also matters WHY you engage in a sexual act.Well yes it does matter WHO and in some cases WHY. I mean you wouldn't have sex with someone if you KNEW they had something and were infectious. And you wouldn't do it if it was non-consenual. But this is not the point. You were talking about the immorality of just having sex for pleasure and having different 'partners' for sex. The immorality isn't in the sex for pleasure, it's in promiscuity and casual sex. You really are a complete dick. You are factually incorrect in every respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 , but also here Lost Login, aspiring for happy consensual coupling twice a day and three times on Tuesdays [Yes I'm paraphrasing!], is also hopelessly idealistic. I agree that it is probably hopelessly idealistic and not what I practice. I also agree relationships and sex within or outside a relationship can be a complex issue emotionally. However within that if both or all parties are happy to have numerous short term partners etc etc then I see no problem with it morally. It is not for me but morally I have no issue if others want to have frequent sex outside a realtionship with different partners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Are people really saying this is all simple, and that happy consensual sex can be consequence free? That to me implies incredible sexual inexperience, or a Narcissistic selfishness which borders on the sociopathic I wonder whether in a society that places such stigma on people for having casual sex with many different partners and not being monogamous is largely the reason for why there may be the possibility of emotional 'harm' or consequences in many cases. I also wonder if a large part of the problem is due to social mores which have developed over the past centuries in regard to male-female sexual relations and sex itself. Sex doesn't need to be love. It can be just sex. Gay people certainly don't have the stigma and problems that heterosexual people seem to encounter. Yes, there are those who adopt what I would think are heterosexual values and condemn promiscuity, but for a lot of men there is an understanding that both people want sex and then they just do it. There is certainly a lot less 'hang ups' in regard to sex. Are heterosexuals more repressed when it comes to sex? I mean, how much hypocrisy and nastiness is thrown at women who have many partners? Names like slag, slut, whore, etc. spring to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The immorality isn't in the sex for pleasure, it's in promiscuity and casual sex. I always find the phrase casual sex strange as I want to reply "No I take it extremely seriously". Since Rog is against promiscuity presumably you have no problem with Polygamy as that is not sex outside a relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The immorality isn't in the sex for pleasure, it's in promiscuity and casual sex. You can't be real. You're made up. Surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The immorality isn't in the sex for pleasure, it's in promiscuity and casual sex. You can't be real. You're made up. Surely? Do you really find it so unbelievable that there are people who do have high moral values? I am real, I have NOT just made it up, it IS what I believe. Promiscuity and casual sex IS immoral. Let’s bring it down to an even simpler level, it’s WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.