What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[Polymath257]

But they might have built a better one too. Two "swinging couples" might just be two dead relationship that survive because the partners in them simply don't have it in them to put an end to such a lon relationship officially even though the feelings are gone. It's pernicious to look at things like that only in what is lost instead of what is gained.

And two swinging couples might be perfectly happy with their relationships, but want to play in some way their partner isn't into. Maybe the play takes pressure off a spouse and makes everyone happier.

There is a saying in the polyamorous crowd: Your Mileage May Vary: YMMV. People are varied enough that the only way to know what is going on is to ask and communicate. Decide on ground rules and stick to them, only re-negotiating when emotions are not on overdrive.

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

 

[epronovost]

Well, you see I think the fear comes from the fact that it is about sex. You can be murdered by anyone in any circumstance. With sex, if you avoid the casual type, you're pretty safe compared to not avoiding the casual type.

A longstanding partner could willingly infect you with HIV too. Your partner might have contracted it from an adulturous relationship and want to get rid of you via disease. That's even more unlikely, but still very possible.

Casual sex is just as safe as sex within a longstanding relationship provided you follow some guidelines and use contraception properly.

 

[epronovost]

Its totally possible. I suppose it was easier for me to see what was lost because the man left behind was my neighbor, so his despair was what I was exposed to.

Indeed and you never saw his problems before or that of his ex-wife. That's where wisdom comes in; the ability to sense and see beyond ones personnal experience.

 

[Piculet]

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

No. I know a woman who is not religious at all but who would be revolted by the idea of following what your OP suggests. It is in a person naturally a revulsion to anything inappropriate. It is only the sick society and sick people (morally sick) that take away this natural inclination.

 

[Piculet]

A longstanding partner could willingly infect you with HIV too. Your partner might have contracted it from an adulturous relationship and want to get rid of you via disease. That's even more unlikely, but still very possible.

But avoiding sex with your spouse is not something a person would be automatically inclined to do.

 

[Polymath257]

No. I know a woman who is not religious at all but who would be revolted by the idea of following what your OP suggests. It is in a person naturally a revulsion to anything inappropriate. It is only the sick society and sick people (morally sick) that take away this natural inclination.

it isn't just religion. It is also upbringing and what is taught about relationships early in life.

I don't think that this is any more a 'natural' response as it is a 'taught' response. People tend to have an aversion to those things they were taught to avoid.

I find the strictures on sexuality in most Abrahamic religions to be thoroughly repulsive. But, if it works for those practicing those religions, then it is not my place to second guess them.

 

[Piculet]

Religiously it doesn't need to be asked what is immoral about it. It is sin. Sinning is immoral.

 

[Polymath257]

But avoiding sex with your spouse is not something a person would be automatically inclined to do.

Avoiding sex with a willing and attractive partner is also not something people are automatically inclined to do.

 

[Polymath257]

Religiously it doesn't need to be asked what is immoral about it. It is sin. Sinning is immoral.

Depends on the religion. For some, it might be a sacrament.

 

[Piculet]

I find the strictures on sexuality in most Abrahamic religions to be thoroughly repulsive.

Sex within marriage — do you need a paper bag?

 

[Piculet]

Avoiding sex with a willing and attractive partner is also not something people are automatically inclined to do.

That's not true. It depends on the circumstance.

 

[Polymath257]

Sex within marriage — do you need a paper bag?

Abrahamic religions tend to have what I see as a very unhealthy view of the body and of sexuality. Yes, limiting sex to marriage is, I think, a problem. It is far better to learn about sexuality before committing to monogamy. For that matter, I would also say it is far better to have sex before marriage to be sure of compatibility. Often, sex with someone else is a way of *saving* a marriage.

Again, YMMV

 

[eik]

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

This is really a thread about atheistic behaviours, which is why it isn't a religious topic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, you see I think the fear comes from the fact that it is about sex. You can be murdered by anyone in any circumstance. With sex, if you avoid the casual type, you're pretty safe compared to not avoiding the casual type.

You can get on PrEP and have all the casual sex you want without getting HIV.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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!

Speaking only out of my own views, I would not have sex with someone who was not my girlfriend. But I do not judge those who choose to do different then I do.

 

[Piculet]

You can get on PrEP and have all the casual sex you want without getting HIV.

A quick search told me that "Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) is when people at risk for HIV take daily medicine to lower their chances of getting HIV."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A quick search told me that "Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) is when people at risk for HIV take daily medicine to lower their chances of getting HIV."

"Studies have shown that PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV from sex by about 99% when taken consistently. Among people who inject drugs, PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV by at least 74% when taken consistently. Since PrEP does not protect against other STDs, use condoms the right way every time you have sex."
PrEP | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC

So that means that you pretty much can't get it through sex as the odds are so low, if you take it consistently.

 

[Sunstone]

I've had far and away more 'casual sex' than I have had committed relationships, especially if Colorado wildlife are factored into the equation, and I have never encountered anything to make me believe the casual arrangements were somehow less moral than the committed arrangements.

You are either treating people with moral decency or you are not, and it is absurd to consider the duration of your involvement with them as fundamentally changing that fact. How could it? Why would it? Heck, if you're me, you're going to end up having to apologize to them for the poor quality of the sex anyway, why not go for short relationships, and get the painful part over with as soon as possible?

 

[ChristineM]

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!

Nothing wrong there but missing a phone call to hubby to check its ok with him.

 

[Sunstone]

No. I know a woman who is not religious at all but who would be revolted by the idea of following what your OP suggests. It is in a person naturally a revulsion to anything inappropriate. It is only the sick society and sick people (morally sick) that take away this natural inclination.

Your views of human sexuality do not appear to be informed by science -- that is, by facts, truths. Opinions that are based on fantasies rather than facts are hardly compelling.

FYI monogamy is only one of a handful of 'reproductive strategies' that come naturally to humans. A specific subset of monogamy -- serial monogamy -- might be the single most popular reproductive strategy, but it is by no means the only one; and one does not have to be a sick person from a sick society to adopt a strategy or two that are other than serial monogamy.

You want "sick"? Go to one of those societies that are relatively uptight about women's sexuality -- such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or India -- and dig down below the official statistics until you find the truth about the rape and sexual assault of women and girls in those societies. You'll find "sick" by the trainload.

In the KSA, they cover it up much better than they do in India, but three of my female cousins lived in the KSA for years, and even though they were foreigners, you can't keep women from talking to women. The KSA is a hell on earth for rape and sexual assault. So is India. And both societies are relatively uptight and prudish about women's sexualities.