Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 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. Only if you're an idiot with imaginary beings telling you it's wrong. Take religion away and there's nothing wrong about it, it just becomes people being nice to one another, a positive thing. You've got to be a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 You just have different morals Rog. Not higher ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Promiscuity and casual sex IS ... WRONG. ... there's nothing wrong about it, it just becomes people being nice to one another, a positive thing. You've got to be a troll. So you disagree with what I've written. Promiscuity and casual sex ... "becomes people being nice to one another, a positive thing." Have you never been struck down by the green eyed monster nor seen the consequences of such emotions on those without self control. Too often its violent and not a positive thing at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Are you talking about people sleeping with someone other than an actual relationship partner, Chinahand? I just don't see the significance and likelihood of the problems you mention if people who aren't in relationships have sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I think all I'm saying is that some people may claim that that they are only having sex for the sex and not for a relationship, but are decieving themselves and the consequences of that deception are often destructive and draw in both the sexual partner and others. That results in social consequences and hence becomes legitimately the topic of ethical consideration. The person may not be a "relationship partner", but there are aspirations etc to consider. People bring up specific instances - but I think those specific instances are rare - sure people can have multiple partners without consequence and emerge from it emotionally well adjusted and disease free - but unfortunately I don't think that is generally applicable. Generally, people are jealous, emotional and possessive; and sex involves bodily fluids where bugs can live and, when it's heterosexual, fetuses. All those things have consequences, and hence saying all it is is being nice to one another and positive isn't true. Too often the results can be quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 So you disagree with what I've written. Promiscuity and casual sex ... "becomes people being nice to one another, a positive thing." Have you never been struck down by the green eyed monster nor seen the consequences of such emotions on those without self control. Too often its violent and not a positive thing at all! I think that's personal to each relationship, and each relationship differs in the ability to deal with such things. I'm not promiscuous, and (I hope!) my partner isn't, but I don't think people that manage to happily live that way are doing anything wrong. Spread the love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I think that's personal to each relationship, and each relationship differs in the ability to deal with such things. I'm not promiscuous, and (I hope!) my partner isn't, but I don't think people that manage to happily live that way are doing anything wrong. Spread the love Totally agree. I aslo accept that there can be emotional and other issues arising from any sexual relationship and whether short term or long term. The same can probably said of similar non sexual realtionships. However from my view point that does not make casual sexual relationships wrong. In fact it probably says more about us as a society than anything else as probably some of the tribes in less developed countries who we would see as being less educated probably have much less of a hang up on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I am unsure what some posters mean by casual sexual relationships. Is it about people having a partner they have for just sex, sort of like a fuck buddy? I can understand why there could be emotional problems that may come out of that. But why do heterosexual people not have facility to hop on the internet to find someone to have sex without any involvement of relationships being formed. Just sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Only if you're an idiot with imaginary beings telling you it's wrong. Take religion away and there's nothing wrong about it, it just becomes people being nice to one another, a positive thing. It’s got nothing to do with religion, religion very often only forms the means of codifying good practice for the maintenance of sound stable societies. The sexual component of a relationship is far more than just people being nice to each other. It is a deep thing that transcends everything else where relationships are concerned and should be retained in that way. More than that the very nature of a sexual relationship extends into the sharing of matter between two people, bodily fluids, and all that involves. To engage in promiscuous sex, and let’s be clear that to me means a series of short term ‘events’, is wrong if for no other reason than it devalues what is the most emotional and intense conjunction that two people can enter into short of cannibalism. But more than that, the very intimacy of the sex act enables the transmission of pathogens ranging from clap through to the ‘frothing knob rot’ and worse, diseases for which there is no cure. It is for this reason that I claim that diseases OF immorality such AIDS are natures way of taking the immoral out of the gene pool. You've got to be a troll. No, I’m not ‘Trolling’, I really do believe that a sexual relationship should be reserved for stable faithful long term relationships between two people. LDV commented on morality, and that what I expressed was not better morality but rather was different morality. My immediate reaction was to think “Nonsense! Of course mine is better” but I was wrong. It IS a case of my moral judgment being different, and only better in relation to what I see as being a good society. I guess my idea of good society, one in which what today most people see as being variously old, fuddy-duddy, outdated, outmoded, but yet where people did not think that theft was relative, that there was such a thing as right and wrong and that respect was a thing that did not always need to be earned, does result in a different morality. The only thing is that in my opinion it is a better morality as it supports society in the form that allowed evolution to take place. Judging from what I see taking place that social evolution and emancipation has not only stopped, but society is now falling apart. Maybe I’m right, maybe not, we are all entitled to our opinions and an opinion is like a nose, we all have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I think that's personal to each relationship, and each relationship differs in the ability to deal with such things. I'm not promiscuous, and (I hope!) my partner isn't, but I don't think people that manage to happily live that way are doing anything wrong. Spread the love Plurals are difficult - if a person is able to happily live having physical, but not emotional relationships with others, AND those who that person has sex with agree and are happy too, as are all the people who are emotionally attached to that person and all those people - then I don't have an issue either. I just think such circumstances are so rare as to be reasonable irrelelevent in trying to understand ethical behaviour. The ethical dilemmas will come when either the person themselves, or the people they have sex with, or people emotionally attached to them do not manage to happily live like that - which is far more common and basically the human condition from Eastenders to Shakespeare. Unfortunately no one has found a way to "spread the love" without emotions getting intense. LDV seems to be implying the male gay scene is different - and the cliche image of San Fransisco's bath houses might seem to confirm that, but I imagine there are a lot of drama queens who really don't like their partner being "eyed up" by anyone - most especially not by the one-eyed trouser snake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 LDV seems to be implying the male gay scene is different - and the cliche image of San Fransisco's bath houses might seem to confirm that, but I imagine there are a lot of drama queens who really don't like their partner being "eyed up" by anyone - most especially not by the one-eyed trouser snake.I brought this up because it is becoming increasingly evident that the other posters on here are looking at this issue from a different way that I am, and I am wondering whether that is due to sexuality. I say this because of the reference to casual relationship, i.e. forming a proper relationship or relationships with other on the basis of sex. Whereas I was thinking more of just sex with no relationship other than a mutual recognition between two strangers to have sex. I wonder whether this is that easy, socially acceptable, and possible for heterosexuals other than the encounters that happen in a nightclub. Yes, you are right, anybody with a partner would not particularly like the other 'eyeing' someone up. But this isn't something restricted to San Francisco. You have sauncas in Manchester and in the big cities. But also you have websites where men can log on, let others see their profile, and then make a mutual agreement to have sex. And it means nothing more than that. In such a way, I am curious whether it is that heterosexual people are more repressed by the rules they have developed and how much of the difference can be accounted to by different social mores and rules accorded to woman in society. I just don't see anything wrong with a man and a woman doing the same as what many gay men do, i.e. check other people out on the internet and just have sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The only thing is that in my opinion it is a better morality as it supports society in the form that allowed evolution to take place. Judging from what I see taking place that social evolution and emancipation has not only stopped, but society is now falling apart.I know what evolution is and I don't understand how it comes into this at all. And I have never heard of social evolution, I think you made that one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Unfortunately no one has found a way to "spread the love" without emotions getting intense. I think you'd be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The sexual component of a relationship is far more than just people being nice to each other. It is a deep thing that transcends everything else where relationships are concerned and should be retained in that way. Why? That's your personal view, and from the crap you post it seems mostly linked to your spiritual view. It's rubbish tough, you're trying to impose personal values on the rest of us. Where do you draw the line on the deep emotional transcendence? A hug? A handshake? A hand job? Vigorous bottom sex? What's the difference, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Rog - I really do think you need to think more carefully about your morals, if you are really not trying to partly anger people for the sake of it. I say that because how can you really look at something like HIV and argue that it is an answer to a problem when a 13 year old who has done nothing wrong other than have sex without protection gets told in a GUM clinic that they have HIV. That person had no education on HIV and safe sex, yet knew (because they are human) they wanted sex and gave it a go. Now they have live for the rest of the life with such a disease. I think you ought to elaborate more on how HIV is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.