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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Potentially, but it is an argument that has been used by materialists — Agustino

What do you mean by this Agustino?

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.

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.

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?

Michael did, you can check his links.

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. — Michael

No I obviously don't believe just that it might be mistaken, I have reasons to think it is mistaken. But with regards to where you are, it is first important to accept the idea that they (your explanations) might be mistaken, and to stop saying that the evidence proves X, when in fact it doesn't.

Just saw his links now. He says that the evidence isn't conclusive and he cites studies that reach neutral conclusions as well as the conclusion that there are psychological _benefits_ to casual sex. (Not that any studies are right just because they're done in an academic context and reach some conclusion, but it doesn't seem they've reached the conclusion you'd like.)

Just saw his links now. He says that the evidence isn't conclusive and he cites studies that reach neutral conclusions as well as the conclusion that there are psychological _benefits_ to casual sex. — Terrapin Station

Perceived psychological benefits exist in cultures which are liberal towards sex - just as psychological harm as a result of it exists in cultures which are conservative towards sex. All this tells is that human perception (NOOOOT psychological reality) is to a large degree governed by culture.

No I obviously don't believe just that it might be mistaken, I have reasons to think it is mistaken. But with regards to where you are, it is first important to accept the idea that they might be mistaken, and to stop saying that the evidence proves X, when in fact it doesn't. — Agustino

I didn't say that it proves it. I'm only saying that it suggests it. And in lieu of evidence to the contrary, the claim that sex isn't always a bad thing (in terms of psychological effects) is more justified than the claim that it is always a bad thing.

And in lieu of evidence to the contrary, the claim that sex isn't always a bad thing (in terms of psychological effects) is more justified than the claim that it's always a bad thing. — Michael

I agree sex isn't always a bad thing in terms of psychological effects. I don't take the hardcore Epicurean position that the Sage will never engage in sex.

I didn't say that it proves it. I'm only saying that it suggests it. — Michael

Just as much as it suggests all other explanations which are congruent with the facts :P

I agree sex isn't always a bad thing in terms of psychological effects. I don't take the hardcore Epicurean position that the Sage will never engage in sex. — Agustino

That was meant to say "casual sex".

That was meant to say "casual sex". — Michael

Then in what way is it more justified?

Then in what way is it more justified? — Agustino

Because the psychological studies have come to the conclusion that casual sex does not always lead to a decrease in psychological well-being.

So this evidence makes the claim "casual sex doesn't always have negative psychological consequences" more justified than the claim "casual sex always has negative psychological consequences".

Perceived psychological benefits exist in cultures which are liberal towards sex - just as psychological harm as a result of it exists in cultures which are conservative towards sex. All this tells is that human perception (NOOOOT psychological reality) is to a large degree governed by culture. — Agustino

So you're appealing to empirical evidence of something that is not at all in any studies?

So this evidence makes the claim "casual sex doesn't always have negative psychological consequences" more justified than the claim "casual sex always has negative psychological consequences". — Michael

Really? But this "evidence" may be there given both statements. If casual sex always has negative psychological consequences, it doesn't follow that our perception of the the psychological reality will always be accurate.

That's what I meant by horizontal gene transfer - if you read the wiki it will even say that in fact — Agustino

Are you really sure?

Yes. Sex does not dominate most of human interaction — Agustino

Are you sure?

Really? But this "evidence" may be there given both statements. If casual sex always has negative psychological consequences, it doesn't follow that our perception of the the psychological reality will always be accurate. — Agustino

With this line of reasoning one can dismiss any and all evidence.

So I don't see much point in discussing this with you. You're just going to dismiss everything you disagree with.

But I wonder, what evidence do you have to support your claim that there are always negative psychological consequences? Do you have a method for determining the effects of casual sex that is better than that of professional psychologists doing professional studies?

Are you really sure? — TheMadFool

Yes, I've looked at the wiki, stop giving it to be 10 times.

Are you sure? — TheMadFool

That's just examples of very small movements of people. Certainly sex does not influence a large share of human affairs, for most people. There are some wierdos now, for which everything is about sex. We have some of them amongst us in actual fact ;)

So you're appealing to empirical evidence of something that is not at all in any studies? — Terrapin Station

No I'm appealing to empirical evidence that is actually there in the studies. The interpretation of that evidence, of course, isn't in the studies, and neither should it be put there in the first place.

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. — Agustino

Yeah, well I'm more of a positive hedonist and a sensualist than Epicurus, but I go for some kind of virtue ethics in which one can judge a person's temperance over the long-term; even Aristotle argued that being moderate was not always the best way, i.e., anger is appropriate on occasion. Thus, I want to say that casual sex is an important or good part of life, but also want to deny that a lifetime of nothing but casual sex is a life lived well; I wouldn't entirely go along with what I imagine others here might say, viz., whatever floats your boat.

No I'm appealing to empirical evidence that is actually there in the studies. — Agustino

So in all of the studies, there was empirical evidence of negative psychological consequences, despite what the research subjects said and despite the conclusions reached by the people conducting the studies. Could you explain how this is the case?

Also, you make quite a step going from "casual sex is bad for your (mental) health" to "casual sex is immoral".

Not much of a step at all if your ethics is ancient Greek, which is about living well (although "immoral" is a troublesome word).

With this line of reasoning one can dismiss any and all evidence. — Michael

No I don't dismiss evidence, I dismiss your interpretation of it. The World Trade center fell after a plane hit it. That's our evidence. You say it fell because the impact of the airplane had in damaging its structural integrity. Or you say bombs were planted inside of it. Or whatever. I, who am more knowledgeable than you in engineering, will say that it fell because fire spread across multiple floors in a steel frame structure, thereby weakening its stiffness, combined with the floors tying the columns together collapsing and thereby the effective lengths of the columns doubling and therefore the maximum buckling load they could carry becoming less than a quarter of the initial value (taking into account reduction in stiffness due to the fire as well). Now because I understand how buildings work, I can have a holistic view, and I know what the right explanation for the facts is, regardless of what folks peddle, and think the facts are saying or whatever nonsense. Now I don't even need to test this (but I have in fact tested it on a computer model, and it is correct), to know that it is the case. It's the one with the largest explanatory framework for what happened.

Do you have a method for determining the effects of casual sex that is better than that of professional psychologists doing professional studies? — Michael

Yes I do. First you have to understand the nature of being human, the desires that are generally found within the human being and what role they play in this economy. Then you have to analyse your own experience and ask yourself what you're really after when you want to have sex. Is it just the physical pleasure? If so, why don't you masturbate, for example? That would be much simpler. Is it something psychological then? If so, then you really want intimacy. If you really want intimacy at some level, then you should pursue that idea to its very conclusion rather than half-heartidly.

Thus, I want to say that casual sex is an important or good part of life — jamalrob

I entirely disagree. Why do you say this?

So in all of the studies, there was empirical evidence of negative psychological consequences, despite what the research subjects said and despite the conclusions reached by the people conducting the studies. Could you explain how this is the case? — Terrapin Station

Are you purposefully misreading the studies? >:O One of them claimed that there was no empirical evidence that casual sex caused negative psychological consequences, not all of them claimed this... really this is such a non-charitable discussion.

One of them claimed that there was no empirical evidence that casual sex caused negative psychological consequences — Agustino

Sure, and you claim that regardless, there was empirical evidence of negative psychological consequences in that study?