• Agustino
    4.2k
    If you agreed to it previously then you contradicted yourself when you said "No they couldn't argue so".jamalrob
    No because it still remains a fair point. They can't argue they had promiscuous sex in order to gain such an understanding. However, they can argue that, for whatever reason they chose to have promiscuous sex, they have gained such an understanding as a result of it. Such an understanding is never intended in the act.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    Indeed, which shows my point - culture determines the attitudes that most people have towards sex. It's not biological in other words.Agustino

    But it means that you can't condemn casual sex on psychological grounds, given that the psychological effects are culture-dependent, and not always negative.

    Having said this, it requires one to understand what being human entails, and what role does sex have in a human existence, to understand the truth independent of culture - meaning which path is actually better regardless of what you have been taught.

    I'm not sure how there can be a culture-independent truth about the psychological effects of casual sex if the psychological effects of casual sex are culture-dependent.

    Are you now moving on to a non-psychological (and also non-spiritual) argument against casual sex?
  • jamalrob
    1k
    sex may be a pleasure, but the potential risks associated with it, especially in a casual setting, always outweigh the potential benefitsAgustino

    Prima facie false, as false as the claim that the risks of rock climbing always outweigh the benefits.

    They can't argue they had promiscuous sex in order to gain such an understanding. However, they can argue that, for whatever reason they chose to have promiscuous sex, they have gained such an understanding as a result of it.Agustino

    Fine. I made no claim that people had casual sex in order to educate themselves on monogamy.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    But it means that you can't condemn casual sex on psychological grounds, given that the psychological effects are culture-dependent, and not always negative.Michael
    Just because the participants have not seen that they are wrong at point X, doesn't mean they aren't going to see this later, or that they aren't wrong at all.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Prima facie false, as false as the claim that the risks of rock climbing outweigh the benefits.jamalrob
    Potentially, but it is an argument that has been used by materialists :P
  • Michael
    2.3k
    Just because the participants have not seen that they are wrong at point X, doesn't mean they aren't going to see this later, or that they aren't wrong at all.Agustino

    What do you mean by "wrong" here? I thought your argument against casual sex was that there are negative psychological consequences. I've provided you with evidence that this isn't always the case.

    So are you now saying that some non-psychological (and non-spiritual) fact makes it wrong?

    I don't know if this is back-peddling or shotgun argumentation or what.
  • Benkei
    385
    Having said this, it requires one to understand what being human entails, and what role does sex have in a human existence, to understand the truth independent of culture - meaning which path is actually better regardless of what you have been taught.Agustino

    Being human, is thankfully, dependent on culture. Otherwise we'd just be animals.
  • TheMadFool
    377
    Nope, that process of horizontal gene transfer is different than reproduction. Bacteria don't reproduce through sexAgustino

    Are you sure?

    Well - it doesn't, and it's such a simplistic reductionism to think it does.Agustino

    How so? Do you have a grander, truer (not sure if that's a word) view on the issue?
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    What do you mean by "wrong" here? I thought your argument against casual sex was that there are negative psychological consequences. I've provided you with evidence that this isn't always the case.Michael
    If there are no negative psychological consequences perceiveable right now, does that mean there won't be any, or there aren't in fact any?

    Are you sure?TheMadFool
    That's what I meant by horizontal gene transfer - if you read the wiki it will even say that in fact.

    How so? Do you have a grander, truer (not sure if that's a word) view on the issue?TheMadFool
    Yes. Sex does not dominate most of human interaction.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    If there are no negative psychological consequences perceiveable right now, does that mean there won't be any, or there aren't in fact any?Agustino

    No, but is that relevant? Is your argument now "casual sex is wrong because there could be (unrecognized) negative psychological consequences (either now or in the future)"? If so then that same reasoning can be used to argue against marrying someone you love and having sex with them.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    No, but is that relevant? Is your argument now "casual sex is wrong because there could be negative psychological consequences (either now or in the future)"?Michael
    No the argument is that you could perceive negative psychological consequences from, say, instance X of casual sex that you don't currently perceive.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    No the argument is that you could perceive negative psychological consequences from, say, instance X of casual sex that you don't currently perceive.Agustino

    So? How does that show that casual sex is wrong?

    And, again, the same can be said about marrying someone you love and having sex with them.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    So? How does that show that casual sex is wrong?Michael
    No that doesn't show it is wrong, but it shows that it is possible to condemn casual sex on psychological grounds - contrary to what you claimed the evidence proved.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    No that doesn't show it is wrong, but it shows that it is possible to condemn casual sex on psychological grounds - contrary to what you claimed the evidence proved.Agustino

    You can't defend your claim "casual sex is wrong because it has negative psychological consequences" from the attack "the evidence shows that casual sex doesn't (always) have negative psychological consequences" by simply asserting that the evidence might be mistaken.

    You have to provide actual counter-evidence.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    You can't defend your claim "casual sex is wrong because it has negative psychological consequences" from the attack "the evidence shows that casual sex doesn't (always) have negative psychological consequences" by simply asserting that the evidence might be mistaken.Michael
    No the evidence isn't mistaken. The evidence is what it is. The explanation of the evidence is mistaken - the mechanism by which such evidence occurs is mistaken.
  • jamalrob
    1k
    Potentially, but it is an argument that has been used by materialistsAgustino

    What do you mean by this Agustino?
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    What do you mean by this Augustino?jamalrob
    I mean to say that some people - Epicurus for one - found that the sage should abstain from sex, as it leads to potentially damaging emotions more frequently than to pleasure, and avoiding pain is more important than gaining pleasure. Now you can disagree with him, and I do disagree with the idea that one should never have sex, but that doesn't mean it's not rational within its own limited scope. I agree with Epicurus for example - but think there's some other kind of sex, which isn't described accurately in this way - committed, non-casual sex.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    No the evidence isn't mistaken. The evidence is what it is. The explanation of the evidence is mistaken - the mechanism by which such evidence occurs is mistaken.Agustino

    No, it might be mistaken. But it might not be. These people might genuinely have not suffered (and will not suffer) negative psychological consequences. You seem to be shifting the burden of proof or arguing from ignorance or moving the goalposts.

    And, again, the same can be said about marrying someone you love and having sex with them.
  • Terrapin Station
    2.7k
    No the evidence isn't mistaken. The evidence is what it is.Agustino

    I didn't read every post above. What study did you reference?
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Michael did, you can check his links.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.