What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[ppp]

According to my religion casual sex is immoral.

Sure. That is what your religion claims. But as we have discussed elsewhere..mere words.

 

[Muffled]

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!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=every+time+you+go

I believe the Bible uses the word confusion to describe it. The heart is not focused. We say our eyes are in focus if we see things clearly but if things are not clear there is confusion.

 

[Muffled]

There is nothing immoral there. It seems very safe, sane and consensual.

I believe if morality were based on those things yu would be right but it is not.

 

[Muffled]

Maybe. Maybe not. Sexual strictures and condemnations are usually tied directly to religion.

I believe the rule is no sex outside the marriage of a man and woman.

 

[PureX]

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.

Such cults do exist, but that certainly does not describe the vast majority of religious association. And even those cults that do exist are only able to hold onto a small select few who are for whatever reason especially vulnerable them. For everyone else, when we reach adulthood we realize that we are responsible for what we allow other people to convince us of, and we learn to reject that sort of nonsense, easily.

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.

No, it's not a "constant refrain". It's just a part of growing up and learning to take responsibility for one's own state of mind. Some people take a little longer to get it, but most people do get it, eventually. You're greatly exaggerating the size and power of religious cults, and greatly under-estimating the power of human cognition.

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.

And some of these motives will be detrimental to themselves, to others, and to society as a whole. Which is why we should avoid acting on them.

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.

In the absurd fantasy world created by greedy pornographers, the only motive, ever, by anyone, for engaging in sexual activity is selfish pleasure. When the truth is that the only motive for the sexual engagements they are presenting to us as their evidence for this absurd proposition, is money. So, if you have fallen under the delusion that the fantasy world created by these greedy pornographers is real, then you might actually believe what you've just posted. But in the actual world that the rest of us humans live in, overwhelmingly, the most common reason for people engaging in sexual interaction is pair-bonding.

 

[ppp]

I believe the Bible uses the word confusion to describe it.

They did not seem confused.

 

[ppp]

I believe if morality were based on those things yu would be right but it is not.

Sure it is.

 

[ppp]

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.

Such cults do exist, but that certainly does not describe the vast majority of religious association.

It would describe both Christianity and Islam. Most forms of Christianity hold that one is born corrupt and deserving of Hell.And only thru the undeserved grace of God can one be redeemed. That grace is earned only through acceptance and submission to that god.
Worthless. Check. Undeserving. Check. Obligation of Gratitude. Check. Value only with respect to the dominant. Check.

And some of these motives will be detrimental to themselves, to others, and to society as a whole. Which is why we should avoid acting on them.

All this says is that some vague consequences are unwanted by some entity or group - so don't. Pfui.

In the absurd fantasy world created by greedy pornographers, the only motive, ever, by anyone, for engaging in sexual activity is selfish pleasure.

Dude. Get a history book. Your fake nostalgia is fake.

 

[ppp]

I believe the rule is no sex outside the marriage of a man and woman.

I don't think so. The rule clearly says that consensual sex is okay outside of marriage and irrespective of gender.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure. That is what your religion claims. But as we have discussed elsewhere..mere words.

They are mere words unless they are the Words of God.... In that case they are anything but mere...
Hypothetically speaking, if you knew they came from God would you adhere to them?

 

[ppp]

They are mere words unless they are the Words of God

The words of a god would still merely be words.

Hypothetically speaking, if you knew they came from God would you adhere to them?

Just because he said so? No. Is there a threat that goes along with those words? Perhaps an "...or else"?

 

[epronovost]

I believe if morality were based on those things yu would be right but it is not.

My morality is based on universal humanist ideals and within that framework, what was described in the OP is perfectly moral and what is described in your holy book is malicious and sadistic.

 

[Trailblazer]

The words of a god would still merely be words.

If that is what you think, I do not understand why you would care if God exists, or do you?

Just because he said so? No. Is there a threat that goes along with those words? Perhaps an "...or else"?

No, there is no threat at all. To be blunt, I was just wondering it you would put God's Law above your own sexual desires.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think so. The rule clearly says that consensual sex is okay outside of marriage and irrespective of gender.

What rule says that?

 

[ppp]

If that is what you think, I do not understand why you would care if God exists, or do you?

I care if gods exist in the same way that I care that aliens exist, though to a much lesser degree. I am curious about the universe and would be jazzed to find out about something new. But I would not feel morally bound to follow a god's laws any more than I would feel morally bound to follow an alien's laws. Either would be a different species, and [ahem] their ways are not human ways.

Frankly, I think it is weird that people want to apply the mores of what is effectively a really, really advanced alien with a different set of needs and values to human society and behaviors. It would be like coming across an species of octopus that is millions of years more advanced than us, and applying their laws to customs and moral imperatives to humans. And then claim that their ways are superior. Makes no sense.

No, there is no threat at all. To be blunt, I was just wondering it you would put God's Law above your own sexual desires.

Why only sexual desire? I would value god's law far beneath moral standards that promote the the well-being of humans as a default position.

 

[ppp]

What rule says that?

Rule 34

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe the rule is no sex outside the marriage of a man and woman.

That is what the Baha'i Law states, so I believe it is the rule.

“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

 

[Trailblazer]

Why only sexual desire? I would value god's law far beneath moral standards that promote the the well-being of humans as a default position.

Do you think YOU KNOW what is best for the well-being of humans?

If God created humans it only makes sense that God would know what is best for them.
What is best is not always what "feels good."

 

[Trailblazer]

Rule 34

What is Rule 34?

 

[ppp]

Do you think YOU KNOW what is best for the well-being of humans?

I think that human opinions on the goals of humans are the only ones that count.

If God created humans it only makes sense that God would know what is best for them.

That does not follow. If "best" is what God thinks is best, then that is merely God's goals and God's opinions about what ought to be. Creation does not confer ownership of moral agents.

What is best is not always what "feels good."

Are you really going to start making banal assumptions about simply being driven by what feels good? Especially when I just took you to task for that in my last post. I really hope not.