What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[ppp]

Are you sure? That sounds much too sensible.

I know, right?!

 

[ppp]

Causing harm to another person — does that ring a bell? Being unfair — does that ring a bell?

But according to you causing harm to another person is not a principle of morality. Nor is being unfair. According to you the standard is what your god wants. And if god want you to harm someone or be unfair, then that is what you call moral.

 

[Polymath257]

So, the answers to the OP boil down to:

1. Sex can be risky.

This is clearly true, but so is all of life. If the people involved know the risks, they have the right to accept those risks. As long as both are adults, understand the risks involved, and are freely accepting those risks, I see no further moral issue. The moral issues come when someone is not an adult, is incapable of choosing because of some limitation, or is being coerced.

2. There may be other relationships involved.

And if those other relationships are OK with it, there is no further moral issue involved. it is the breach of trust that is immoral and would be just as immoral if a partner said they would not go play tennis with someone else and still did so. The *default* is usually that relationships are monogamous, but there is no MORAL issue if they are not (and freely entered into).

3. A religion or deity says it should not be done.

This is solely an issue for those who accept that religion or follow that deity. It is 'between them and their God'.

The moral issue disappears for those who don't follow that religion or believe in that deity. In a sense, followers of such deities have made a promise and are breaking that promise. THAT is the moral issue, not the sex.

Upshot: casual sex can be completely moral. And, truthfully, it can even be a good thing. But it does carry risks, both for health and emotions. Being aware of those risks and freely accepting them is crucial for the moral question. Also, whether there are other commitments involved is important for the morality of the situation.

 

[ChristineM]

They told each other and everyone that they had an 'open' marriage. But their emotions were truly different than they thought they had.

Ahh, that is strange.

 

[Polymath257]

But according to you causing harm to another person is not a principle of morality. Nor is being unfair. According to you the standard is what your god wants. And if god want you to harm someone or be unfair, then that is what you call moral.

Someone has the right to knowingly and freely assume risks. Much of life is risky. To expect a complete lack of risk is insane. So, we all decide what risks are worth it and which are not. As long as all involved are fully aware and willing to accept the consequences, there is not a moral issue.

 

[Polymath257]

Ahh, that is strange.

Some people are very poor at predicting their future emotions. It is a human thing.

 

[thomas t]

Or another baby without a proper family.

An unintended pregnancy carried to term doesn't mean the family is not proper.

 

[thomas t]

The roof might fall in or a plane crash on the hotel'

In the outlined scenario in this thread, there is a risk of potentially arising unborn life having to die. That's the moral question at stake.
However, this risk was caused by a decision of human beings.
Since you're not talking about terrorism or bad construction in your comparison as I understand it... the consensual decision is is the difference.

 

[blü 2]

In the outlined scenario in this thread, there is a risk of potentially arising unborn life having to die. That's the moral question at stake.

Abortion is question for the woman. On the background of the Doe v Wade rules, I fully support choice. The alternative is that women are breeding stock with no rights of their own. Likewise the decision to take that very small but not impossible risk is a decision that here is voluntarily taken with eyes open. You run a small, but relatively greater, risk of harm every time you drive your car or perhaps more analogously, accept a lift from a friend.

However, this risk was caused by a decision of human beings.
Since you're not talking about terrorism or bad construction in your comparison as I understand it... the consensual decision is is the difference.

The capacity and maturity of the parties, the full disclosure, the equality of power between them, the informed consent ─ but yes, I agree.

 

[ppp]

no it does not. Condoms do not garuantee anything.

However, this risk was caused by a decision of human beings.

I have read back thru this sub-conversation, and I don't get the point. There is a risk that having sex may result in events that one or both parties are adverse to occurring. Or results that you as an outside party may not which to occur. Yes. That is true. And?

 

[Rise]

It wasn't an argument.

Considering that I refuted your claim with valid arguments, the "burden of rejoinder" is on you to respond to my arguments with valid counter arguments.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that then you tacitly concede your point has been refuted.

And if you cannot be bothered to educate yourself as to what the null hypothesis is, that is not my problem.

You just admitted that your statement of "null hypothesis" was not an attempt to formulate a valid counter argument.

Therefore, the definition of "null hypothesis" would not be relevant to refuting what I said. Because you admit you never intended that word to refute what I said to begin with.

 

[Piculet]

An unintended pregnancy carried to term doesn't mean the family is not proper.

I was thinking in the context of the OP.

 

[thomas t]

Abortion is question for the woman. On the background of the Doe v Wade rules, I fully support choice. The alternative is that women are breeding stock with no rights of their own. Likewise the decision to take that very small but not impossible risk is a decision that here is voluntarily taken with eyes open. You run a small, but relatively greater, risk of harm every time you drive your car or perhaps more analogously, accept a lift from a friend.

I'm not attacking women by wanting to make them behave the way I do.
The car analogy is flawed, I think.
If you go by car and you behave normal... you don't actively elevate the risk of someone having to die.
In the outlined case in this thread, let's say pill plus condom, you could do more to prevent unwanted pregnancy, I think.

Think of this: implanon plus condom would be more prevention as I see it.
I'm not saying women should use this, though.

Just commenting on the scenario.

I'm not trying to control behavior or anything like this. As these were the type of comments I used to get when conversing with pro-choicers...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The quick answer? Because Jehovah God intended it solely between married couples.
When both spouses apply Jehovah’s other requirements — selflessly putting the other’s interests ahead of their own — sex just strengthens that bond & love between them...it establishes a psychological security between them, that only they share. And the children they create, can feel a sense of security growing up, becoming well-grounded adults.

It all ties together....having genuine love for your spouse, and expressing it with foreplay & coitus. Sexual relations has lasting value in those circumstances.....the couple becomes “one flesh.”

Now, sex is just a form of amusement.....
Not too long ago, a few decades back, sex was held a lot more sacred. Women who devalued it and slept around were considered “loose.” And the men who slept with them were “cads, scoundrels, no use.” And the family unit was more intact.

Nowadays many children don’t even know who their Dad is! You think that’s good for society?
Sex outside of marriage, among other actions, has simply led to the breakdown of the family, which is the foundational unit of society.

Ponder this: We know the Bible condemns sexual immorality. If Jehovah God is the Author of it, what reason would He have to tell us to avoid it? (I mentioned a few already.) Maybe, being our Creator & knowing our makeup physically and psychologically better than we do ourselves, Jehovah knows what’s best for us in the long run?

I’ve known many sexually immoral people, my Dad being one of them, who were so unhappy when they died! As for my Dad, his immoral lifestyle brought him no lasting joy!
In the generation I was growing up, “free love” was gaining popularity. Sex was easier to find, & he found it elsewhere. He didn’t hold sacred the sexual attraction he had with my Mother.

I have discovered that following Jehovah’s Laws, even if it requires self-control, or patience, or some self-sacrifice on our part, is always better in the long run!


Take care, my cousin.

Hm. Do you think two people can have sex in genuine love without marriage? (Assuming right and wrong and marriage excluded)

The act of sex. Is it only because god says so or is there also a moral reason, like rape and abuse it is wrong in itself outside religious views?

 

[thomas t]

I have read back thru this sub-conversation, and I don't get the point. There is a risk that having sex may result in events that one or both parties are adverse to occurring. Or results that you as an outside party may not which to occur. Yes. That is true. And?

there is third party involved, as I see it.
Once a pregnancy occurs, we have unborn life arising.

 

[Piculet]

But according to you causing harm to another person is not a principle of morality. Nor is being unfair. According to you the standard is what your god wants. And if god want you to harm someone or be unfair, then that is what you call moral.

God gave us the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to look at what Islam says of each separate little issue to know whether they're wrong or not.

God is the most just.

If the law says you can harm someone to help yourself and you have the need, that is moral to you.

I don't get your point.

 

[ppp]

Considering that I refuted your claim with valid arguments, the "burden of rejoinder" is on you to respond to my arguments with valid counter arguments.

If you haven't guessed yet, I am not reading past your first flawed statement, Rise. And have not been doing so since your second or third post to me on a previous topic. I am not certainly going to start now.

A proper argument has a premise and a conclusion with a logical argument connecting the two together.

A valid deductive argument has two premises and a conclusion with terms connecting the three together. A sound deductive argument is valid in structure with both premises accepted as being true.
Do you even recall what your argument is? Try presenting that without all the ego and narrations. Or don't.

 

[ppp]

there is third party involved, as I see it.
Once a pregnancy occurs, we have unborn life arising.

I agree that sperm is alive, and that an egg is alive, and that an embryo is a living organism different from either parent.
Continue.

 

[ppp]

But according to you causing harm to another person is not a principle of morality. Nor is being unfair. According to you the standard is what your god wants. And if god want you to harm someone or be unfair, then that is what you call moral.

God gave us the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to look at what Islam says of each separate little issue to know whether they're wrong or not.

God is the most just.

That is the semantically equivalent to what I said regarding your beliefs. That you claim that what God wants is the foundation of morality.

If the law says you can harm someone to help yourself and you have the need, that is moral to you.

The law has nothing to do with determining what is moral. If that is actually your assumption about how I determine what is and is not moral, you are not even in the ballpark. The morality of an action is determined by whether or not the action aligns to the moral metrics - the primary of which are empathy, fairness, compassion and reciprocity.

 

[Rise]

If you haven't guessed yet, I am not reading past your first flawed statement, Rise.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting my first statement was flawed doesn't prove it is just because you assert it is.
You cannot give any valid reasons or evidence why my statement should be considered flawed.

And have not been doing so since your second or third post to me on a previous topic. I am not certainly going to start now.

The fact that you choose not to respond with a valid counter argument doesn't absolve you of having the burden of rejoinder to do so.

Otherwise you concede that you cannot defend your point and it stands as refuted.

A valid deductive argument has two premises and a conclusion with terms connecting the three together. A sound deductive argument is valid in structure with both premises accepted as being true.

Your statement falls under the category of "Irrelevent Conclusion".
Your definition of an argument is not relevant to refuting my point - which is that you do not have an argument at all.

If anything all you've done is affirmed my point was true, that you did not have a valid counter argument.

Do you even recall what your argument is?

Why wouldn't I?

Try presenting that without all the ego and narrations.
Or don't.

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem".
Unable to refute the arguments I made on any logical or factual basis, you can only turn to name calling.
Your Ad Hominem of a baseless unproven accusation of being "ego" doesn't refute the validity of any of my arguments.

Nor does your dislike of "narrations" (whatever that is suppose to mean), negate the "burden of rejoinder" you have to counter my arguments with valid counter arguments unless you want to concede that your claims have been refuted.