What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[Watchmen]

I see that you avoided the substance of the topic, concentrating on an extraneous line; defending your tender bits. So sensitive. And work on those geography skills.

Don’t get your panties in a bunch. Not every conversation must be so serious. We can make light and show that there are always exceptions to the OPs.

 

[ppp]

Don’t get your panties in a bunch. Not every conversation must be so serious. We can make light and show that there are always exceptions to the OPs.

My panties, like your ego, are wispy and sheer, and would tear into threads before they could ever get into a bunch. So, no worries. I am no more serious than you.

 

[Watchmen]

My panties, like your ego, are wispy and sheer, and would tear into threads before they could ever get into a bunch. So, no worries. I am no more serious than you.

Mwahahahahaha!

 

[Watchmen]

Perhaps if you stepped back and look at my posts you’d see I’ve give at least one example of where Sex among consenting adults may be immoral.

 

[thomas t]

All good Christian?

Hi Christine,
no. I'm not claiming Christianity to be all good.
They bully LGBT+ people, for example.
I'd even say that if you, as a fellow Christian, say something in their defence, you're in risk of getting treated unfairly.
But this doesn't show that they have more abortions, though.

 

[thomas t]

Which is not a reason.

I think it is. I think it's clear that taking action that leads to more abortions is wrong. Always.

Can the 5 year old a parent raped "agree" to the rape when they are 20? Hell, no.

most survivors of child abuse do not do so. Maybe all of them.
But this thread isn't about child abuse.
Let's stay with this one:
Anyone agrees to having been transported in a car when they were young. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being transported in a car when you were young.
I think our subdiscussion has come to an end now?

 

[ChristineM]

So a cougar woman having sex with a boy with Down syndrome is not immoral? That’s really where you’re coming from?

No. Not even you mentioned "boy" this is a new tactic to hide behind,

Why should it be if they are of age and fancy each other and are hurting no one by their actions?

But that is not the point, the OP mentioned nothing about cougars or downs syndrome, you introduced them as a disparaging slight and now you are moving goalposts.

 

[ChristineM]

Hi Christine,
no. I'm not claiming Christianity to be all good.
They bully LGBT+ people, for example.
I'd even say that if you, as a fellow Christian, say something in their defence, you're in risk of getting treated unfairly.
But this doesn't show that they have more abortions, though.

The LGBT argument is something of a straw man here.

Statistics do show they have more teen pregnancy, more stds, more abortions and a higher rate of drug use in bible belt states. Yes it may be a consequence of poverty but that does not detract from their faith

 

[ppp]

I think it is

It is clear that you think it is. It is also clear that you have an opinion with no intention, or ability to justify. Which means there is little more to be said.

 

[thomas t]

The LGBT argument is something of a straw man here.

well, it was to show that evidently not everything is all good in Christianity. Nevertheless it stays my environment and it is good to me.

It is also clear that you have an opinion with no intention, or ability to justify.

I did justify it.

 

[ppp]

I did justify it.

No. You asserted it.

 

[PureX]

I think "casual sex" is unrealistic in that sexual interactions among we humans are not so insignificant as that: not physically nor emotionally. And if sexual interactions really were that insignificant, what would be the point, really? Masturbation would be far more precise and efficient.

And because the idea of "casual sex" is so unrealistic, people get themselves in all sorts of contention and difficulty by acting on the presumption that it is realistic. I don't think casual sexual intercourse is "immoral", I just think is an unrealistic idea, among humans. For many animals, yes, but not for the vast majority of humans.

 

[ppp]

I think "casual sex" is unrealistic in that sexual interactions among we humans are not so insignificant as that: not physically nor emotionally. And if sexual interactions really were that insignificant, what would be the point, really? Masturbation would be far more precise and efficient.

Sometimes I want to plan, prepare and share an elaborate meal over the course of weeks. Sometimes I want to share burger and a beer at a lunch bar. Sometimes I want to eat a canister of Pringles all by myself. Sometimes I am just not hungry and have other things to do. All four have their own emotional and physical significance.

And because the idea of "casual sex" is so unrealistic, people get themselves in all sorts of contention and difficulty by acting on the presumption that it is realistic. I don't think casual sexual intercourse is "immoral", I just think is an unrealistic idea, among humans. For many animals, yes, but not for the vast majority of humans.

It's not that casual sex is unrealistic, but that people are taught to view any sexual desires or act that do not conform to (usually) religious constraints are shameful and degrading, and that one could not possibly be emotionally fulfilled engaging in unapproved sex. The image marketed is... brief happiness, then sitting in a corner rocking and weeping with unkempt hair.

 

[Watchmen]

No. Not even you mentioned "boy" this is a new tactic to hide behind,

Why should it be if they are of age and fancy each other and are hurting no one by their actions?

But that is not the point, the OP mentioned nothing about cougars or downs syndrome, you introduced them as a disparaging slight and now you are moving goalposts.

True. The OP said nothing of cougars or disabled and I added that as an element to discuss. Pretty simple and not bigoted.

 

[ChristineM]

True. The OP said nothing of cougars or disabled and I added that as an element to discuss. Pretty simple and not bigoted.

You added derogatory scenarios twice, why should a mutually willing agreement require you to input deliberately degrading characters in an attempt to discredit the intention of the OP

Considering the hate that comes from your comments i can only assume the worst intentions.

 

[Trailblazer]

A: You're intoxicating.
B: You're amazing.
A: Sex?
B: Yes, please. I have till five.
A: I'll get a room across the street.
{pause for lingering kiss}
B: Any health concerns we need to work around?
A: No. And I test quarterly
B: Cool. Me too. But have had HPV
A: Not a problem. You'll get condoms?
B: I'll get the condoms. Latex okay?
A: I'm allergic.
B: Ok. I'll get polyisoprene. Lube preference?
A: Anything water based. And a dam. It will may me more comfortable. And get drinks and snacks. Salty snacks.
B: Will do. Here's my number. Text me with the room number.
A: You bet! {pause for promising kiss} We're going to have so much fun!
B: Feel my heart. It's pounding. I'd better go shopping before I forget how to walk. See you soon!

This thread is much too long for me to read through, but I just saw it so I feel compelled throw my name in the hat.

According to my religion casual sex is immoral. Not only that, it is against the Baha'i Laws that Baha'u'llah revealed. Please bear in mind that these Laws only apply to Baha'is and we do not expect anyone else to adhere to them.

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

 

[thomas t]

No. You asserted it.

and I delivered a justification, I think.
If you say "no, you didn't", then be sure I will be replying "yes, I did".. so can we stop the merry go round right here, maybe?

 

[PureX]

It's not that casual sex is unrealistic, but that people are taught to view any sexual desires or act that do not conform to (usually) religious constraints are shameful and degrading, and that one could not possibly be emotionally fulfilled engaging in unapproved sex.

That's BS. Religions can't teach anyone anything they don't want to believe is true. And anyway, it's people who create their religions, not the other way around. Humans don't engage in sex purely for procreation, or purely pleasure. They do it mostly for the sake of pair-bonding. Which as undermined by the idea of 'casual sex'.

 

[ppp]

That's BS. Religions can't teach anyone anything they don't want to believe is true.

Your statement is doubly false. Any person, group, or culture that has power over someone, and constantly reinforces the message that one is worthless, or corrupt, or undeserving, or shameful can persuade someone of those falsehoods. We see this type of abuse in all types of relationships. "I'm worthless and useless and undeserving of love, and should only feel grateful that my spouse/parent/teacher/boss/institution/culture/god is willing to look past that and show me any affection." It's a constant refrain.

And anyway, it's people who create their religions, not the other way around.

Well, duh. Religions are entirely human institutions where any messages of degradation they might contain are encoded in, and entailed by, the systems of belief; perpetuated upon each successive generation by its adherents.

Humans don't engage in sex purely for procreation, or purely pleasure.

Any given person may in any given sex act engage purely for procreation, or pleasure, or manipulation, or curiosity, or another reason entirely. Or they may mix and match any of those motivations to any degree.

They do it mostly for the sake of pair-bonding.

If that were true then sex not had for the sake of pair bonding would be an outlying behavior. That is quite obviously not the case.

 

[ppp]

and I delivered a justification, I think.
If you say "no, you didn't", then be sure I will be replying "yes, I did".. so can we stop the merry go round right here, maybe?

When asked for a justification this is what you wrote. And repeated, several times.

Those first two sentences are statements about what is. Statements about what is cannot justify a statement about what ought to be, Justifications are provided by agreeing upon a goal, and showing that the action taken are contrary to that goal. I tried to point out that "noone can rule out that it's humans that get killed" is not always an overriding goal. And in fact you agreed that no one morally obligated to donate their body to support the life of another in the case of a blood or organ donor. I then tried to get you to explain why bodily support is only a moral obligation for a pregnant woman.

All I got were the bald assertions. No justifications.

I say abortion kills. And noone can rule out that it's humans that get killed. That's why it is immoral

I think it is. I think it's clear that taking action that leads to more abortions is wrong. Always.

Now, if I missed something key in one of your posts, I would like to see it.