Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple. — Agustino

Sex is aimed at a plurality of ends, but let's be honest: at its most basic the goal of sex is the satisfaction of a biological urge. Sex is not a rational activity in the sense that people generally do not deliberate about whether or not it is something they want to pursue, but rather they are driven to pursue it, often without reflection. The sex drive is biologically determined.

For some people sex is unattainable, or rarely attainable. That pretty much takes care of the problem of overindulgence. Those for whom sex is an option, the fact that we have even a minimal capacity to overcome our basic urges is amazing. In the context of readily available sex, behaviour that is purely devoted to procreation and intimacy would certainly require an impressive amount of discipline and will power.

In the context of readily available sex, behaviour that is purely devoted to procreation and intimacy would certainly require an impressive amount of discipline and will power. — geospiza

Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour.

Sex is aimed at a plurality of ends, but let's be honest: at its most basic the goal of sex is the satisfaction of a biological urge. — geospiza

No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy.

Sex is not a rational activity in the sense that people generally do not deliberate about whether or not it is something they want to pursue, but rather they are driven to pursue it, often without reflection. — geospiza

That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it.

Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour. — Agustino

No, it's not my intention to misinterpret you, but you are taking such a hard line that you will no doubt perceive me as an adversary.

No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy. — Agustino

This embodies an overly simplistic view of nature as a rational agent. That is not to say that there isn't or couldn't be a rational agent behind nature, but nature itself is rather clumsy and inefficient. The reasons that nature made us the way that we are involves complicated historical processes, not all of which are ascertainable to us.

That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it. — Agustino

You are now guilty of misinterpreting me. I did not say that people should not deliberate and consider how to behave responsibly with respect to sex. However, the basic human desire for sex is non-negotiable, and the denial of our sexuality has led to its own fair share of misery.

you are taking such a hard line that you will no doubt perceive me as an adversary. — geospiza

How is it a hard line? This is absolutely the standard line on sexuality that has been taken by all major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) including most of the philosophers of the past.

This embodies an overly simplistic view of nature as a rational agent. — geospiza

Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? :s

That is not to say that there isn't or couldn't be a rational agent behind nature, but nature itself is rather clumsy and inefficient. — geospiza

I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine.

However, the basic human desire for sex is non-negotiable, and the denial of our sexuality has led to its own fair share of misery. — geospiza

I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person.

Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? — Agustino

It is uncontroversial that the heart and the vascular system together perform the function of circulating the blood to and from the extremities of the body. The reason for this is not as easy to state. The naturalistic explanation is provided by history and genealogy. There may also be ultimate reasons, but they remain highly speculative. My own view is that the advanced vertebrate cardiovascular system was a requirement of the increasingly complex biota of our planet.

I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine. — Agustino

Nature is complex, sophisticated and, at times, beautiful, but by no means does it perform optimally. Nature is imperfect, as we are imperfect. Nature may reflect the divine, but it is not itself divine. Beware of idolatry in your views of nature.

I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person. — Agustino

No argument here.

It is uncontroversial that the heart and the vascular system together perform the function of circulating the blood to and from the extremities of the body. — geospiza

So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening?

The reason for this is not as easy to state. — geospiza

This is irrelevant, since the teleological explanation functions as part of the full explanation that can be given for the heart and the vascular system.

Nature is complex, sophisticated and, at times, beautiful, but by no means does it perform optimally. Nature is imperfect, as we are imperfect. Nature may reflect the divine, but it is not itself divine. Beware of idolatry in your views of nature. — geospiza

The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right.

So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening? — Agustino

I don't understand what you are driving at here. Some things happen for a reason in the sense that they are pre-meditated by a rational agent. Other things happen for a reason in the sense that they perform a function. Still other things happen for a reason in the sense that they are caused. Reasons can be proximate or ultimate, singular or plural. Yes, some [all?] things in nature happen for a reason, but reasons come in many different flavours.

The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right. — Agustino

Nature is ingenious, but it proceeds by trial and error. There are thought to be some organisms or some features of organisms that perform optimally in a given environment. Features that confer an acute adaptive advantage are typical of these traits. There are numerous other examples, however, where nature functions just well enough to get the job done, more-or-less (e.g. the reptilian heart). In nature we also find examples of vestigial features that appear to serve no biological purpose whatsoever (e.g. the pelvic bone of a snake). Nature is wonderful, awe-inspiring and inventive, but it is also an ongoing work in progress.

I don't understand what you are driving at here. Some things happen for a reason in the sense that they are pre-meditated by a rational agent. Other things happen for a reason in the sense that they perform a function. Still other things happen for a reason in the sense that they are caused. Reasons can be proximate or ultimate, singular or plural. Yes, some [all?] things in nature happen for a reason, but reasons come in many different flavours. — geospiza

:s This is not what I'm saying. I agree with Aristotle's view that all things have 4 causes that are required to fully explain them: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary.

Nature is ingenious, but it proceeds by trial and error. — geospiza

What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure.

Nature is wonderful, awe-inspiring and inventive, but it is also an ongoing work in progress. — geospiza

This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring.

Now please watch: Vagabond will post here another massive post that will be full of red herrings and strawmans ;)

There is no equating of casual sex with suicide and cannibalism up there. A comparison, illustrating how consent is irrelevant to the immorality of the underlying activity, doesn't mean a comparison between the gravity of two different underlying activities. You're really having a hard time aren't you? — Agustino

O.k, to be fair you compared sex and cannibalism to denying intimacy sex to one's spouse (which is somehow equally disturbing), although you do later go on to compare casual sex with suicide as follows: "If someone says I wanna buy this pill and kill myself with it, it's wrong to sell them the pill. WHY? According to your stupid logic, which you don't even agree with, this shouldn't be wrong, because they've given their consent! (think of your stupid tattoo example)
"

The analogy that can be drawn is "if someone wants to have consensual sex with you, it's wrong to have sex with them in the same way (or by some degree of comparison) that giving them cyanide to kill themselves is wrong.

I do find it kind of amusing that you will make sure to clarify that you've not actually said something although you actually agree with it in principle.

No, stop right there. I wasn't trying to argue that. Seems like you have reading comprehension issues. I was illustrating that breaking of consent is one moral issue (which happens both in rape and in forced feeding) and the underlying action - feeding and sex - are another set of moral issues. — Agustino

Whether or not sex is consensual is a main determiner of whether or not an individual deems that sex to be traumatic or harmful. "The inherent (im)morality of casual sex" is directly tied to the issue of consent.

By your logic someone who has enjoyable and casual sex but then force fed cabbage has been equally harmed as someone who has been raped but then not force fed cabbage, right?

Because according to you breaking consent is different than the morality of sex. So someone who is raped has their consent breached (one unit of consent-harm) and is harmed by the casual and consensual sex (one unit of sex-harm). So the person who gets raped likewise has (one unit of-consent harm) and (one-unit of sex harm).

Consent and sex are two separate and entirely unrelated moral issues, so this makes sense right?

A comparison of how traumatic each are is irrelevant since I never compared them in the first place in terms of their gravity. I've only said that the breaking of consent is the same, and equally wrong in both. The reasons why one of them is more wrong than the other is because on top of breaking consent is added fornication. — Agustino

The main problem with this approach is that the same actions can be considered harmful by some, and not harmful by others, and furthermore when something is undesired (sex for instance) then experiencing it is made traumatic and harmful fairly explicitly by the lack of consent itself, not the necessary nature of the act (or sex act).

If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property.

If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy.

You cannot necessarily separate consent from the morality of certain actions and behaviors.

Right, so if someone consents that the invasive action of eating them alive be done on them, then it's right to eat them alive? :s If not, then why the fuck not? Clearly NOT because of consent, so stop citing consent like an idiot. — Agustino

So if you have sex with someone who consents to have sex, you would be doing something immoral to them like if you were to eat someone alive who consents to be eaten alive?

(I want to say "here's you comparing sex with cannibalism", but first I'll have you agree to the above sentence so that there will no longer be any doubt)

No, because they objectively burn and harm the skin of your body. — Agustino

But, MacDonald's workers often burn their hands on the hot equipment, so I guess that makes MacDonald's work immoral, even though they consent.

Obviously the pain of tattoos is not significant enough for people to care about, so why is a moral issue?

Don't give me this bullshit nonsense. Consent means that their will is broken. The additional trauma of it cannot have anything to do just with their will, cause their will is broken in forced eating too. It's the same will that is broken. In terms of consent, the same harm is done. So the additional harm can only come from a different source, not from the breaking of consent. — Agustino

It's this kind of confused thinking that will get you to say that rape is the same as casual sex combined with leaving sooner than your partner wants you to (i.e, after sex).

Sex is had in both cases and consent is breached in both cases. Right?

I never said I'm destined for divorce :s - really is your reading comprehension that bad? — Agustino

I think when you explained that "freedom to stay married" is like "the freedom of a slave to escape", I cannot be blamed for reading in-between the lines despite your constant protesting that you yourself are not at risk.

"whiny beta male" - that concept doesn't translate to me, sorry to tell you. — Agustino

Yes, and the gent doth protest to much me thinks...

This isn't a matter of ego-centrism at all, it's just a fact. If you think you're never harmed by the decisions of others then you're absolutely deluded, let me tell you that. We are harmed by the decisions of other people, including with regards to sexuality. And it isn't only one way that I'm harmed. If these dangerous misconceptions (some of which you're also peddling) spread through society, then we'll live in a far worse place than otherwise. — Agustino

The private decisions of other people to engage in consensual sexual acts behind closed doors do not tangibly affect you (this encapsulates your ego-centrism). Peddling the idea that you and society are harmed when your warped morals pertaining to sex are breached behind closed doors is a very dangerous idea because if enough people really believed it they would probably go around enforcing it, just like your bible says to do.

No it's absolutely not ego-centric. Ego-centric is something that I derive pleasure from, something that is selfish. There's no question of selfishness here, because what you call "my sense of entitlement and harm" is nothing but a natural human reaction, which you have perhaps repressed in your own self. Respecting yourself isn't the same as selfishness. You're really having a hard time tonight — Agustino

But if your future wife is out there having consensual sex right now, she's harming you. If you could magically communicate with her, you would probably tell her how badly she has emotionally injured you. That's selfish by my standards...

Right, it's not as harmful as non-consensual sex, that doesn't mean it isn't harmful. — Agustino

Oh, but the morality of an underlying action has nothing to do with consent RIGHT?

If you're willing to admit you previously described the relationship between consent and sex incorrectly, maybe we can begin to start climbing back out of this rabbit hole you've dragged us into...

No it's absolutely not a highly relevant aspect of dinner or sex morality. It's a highly relevant aspect of the morality of interacting with others, regardless of what kind of interaction you have with them. Again, seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. You fail to see a very simple distinction.

If consent is what makes an underlying activity moral or immoral, then why the FUCK is eating someone alive not moral if they give you their consent huh? Stop pretending you don't understand this simple analogy. There is much more to morality than your consent. And this is proven to anyone reading this, beyond any reasonable doubt. Consent alone cannot describe the morality of underlying activities, but rather the morality of interactions with people, regardless of the nature of those interactions. But the underlying activities are also relevant to determine the moral relevance of the entire situation.

And no, trying to separate consent from sexual morality is absolutely fine. I DO separate consent from the morality of cannibalism, why shouldn't I do the same for sex, and all other activities? :s These things must be judged separately. — Agustino

So I never actually said that consent is always the only consideration that must be made when determining "the underlying immorality of an action", but it was you who kept saying that consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action. I think that the inaccuracy of that is by now proven to anyone reading this.

Cannibalism isn't always immoral by the way, if consuming the dead is the only means of survival, then it's not immoral at the very least.

Sex isn't always harmful or immoral, and comparing it to murder and cannibalism is misleading because cannibalism and killing are almost always harmful and immoral, while in many many situations casual sex is not at all harmful.

"Maybe someone will regret sex" is not a necessary harm, nor is "I view promiscuous people as having less dignity" a necessary harm.

You still need to demonstrate why casual sex is necessarily harmful; that's the central crux of your entire position.

The latter. And no, without masturbation you won't necessarily become stressed and sexually frustrated. It's something that comes with practice, given that we live in a very promiscuous and hyper-sexualised culture. You actually feel much better in many regards without masturbation.

Just strictly sexually, masturbation is probably the worst sin. But overall it's preferable to fornication because fornication isn't just a sexual sin, but also a sin against charity and justice. So yes, if people cannot be chaste, they should definitely resort to masturbation rather than another activity. — Agustino

So "not reproducing" and not "getting married" is immoral? Or is it just immoral to touch yourself for pleasure because you're misusing the necessary teleological ends of your penis?

(it's my penis and I'll do with it what I want to thanks)

Yes, I think you should, but I have no idea how exactly you'd "disrespect" it... — Agustino

What if you were conceived on the counter of a truck stop bathroom? Should you revere the truck stop bathroom countertop or the entire truck stop? Does that also include revering the employees? (does that include the employees who were working there at the time or any subsequent employee to ever have worked there?).

Since you're on about some sacredness of the "whole being" and all that, we need to be clear and specific about these things I think.

Quite the contrary, I think it's you who is completely on the move back, projecting onto me your own ideas and your own worldview, which I do not share. — Agustino

"Fails to actualize potential for communion" becomes "disrespects person hood" "disconsidering of the emotional well-being of the other" which becomes "invasive to whole being" which becomes "close to your conception" which becomes "something to revere" which becomes "problematic if misused" et cetra, et cetra.

"Consent has nothing at all to do with moral issues pertaining to sex" becomes "Of course consent has to do with the morality of human interaction (including sex)" which then reverts back to "of course the issue of consent is different from the immorality of sex".

A quick recap: My position is that consensual and casual sex between two adults isn't necessarily harmful, and previously it was that the mere intention to be sexually appealing as indecency is not a sound or useful foundation for determining social moral norms. These views have not changed at all, and what we've been doing is going through layers of your attempts to actually justify your contrary views (such as by insisting that casual sex is abuse, and using all kinds of descriptions as to why (i.e: harmful to integrity, lowers value as person, disrespects person-hood, invasive to whole being, something to be revered, harmful to future spouses, disconsiderative of emotional well-being, contributes to rising divorce and the collapse of society, teleological misuse of necessary ends compared to accidental ends (see Aristotle XD), et cetra, et cetra.)).

the reason why you've had to thrust so many varied reasons as to why casual sex is inherently immoral is because I've criticized each one at length and explained that the types of "harm" that you describe all have to do with your subjective sensibilities (things like integrity, personhood, emotional-well being (you presume everyone's emotional well being is harmed by casual sex), value as a person, reverence of a sacred act, and the value of adhering to teleological necessity (see: your argument on the harm of masturbation) and therefore are not perceived by everyone in the same way and are often not considered to be harmful at all (for example, many people disagree that casual sex is damaging to their emotional well-being, or that the loss of "dignity" is actually harmful), OR, that the societal harm you allege is the fault of promiscuity and casual sex is not directly or only correlated (via causation) with casual sex alone, but instead with a host of other factors which must be addressed before assertions like "promiscuity is the main cause of the rise in divorce rates" can be made with confidence.

Why is casual sex necessarily harmful?

That's the question I'm hoping you can answer. I never needed convincing that casual sex MIGHT be harmful (in a given instance), but I'm still hoping that you can convince me why casual sex is necessarily harmful in each and every instance. "Might lead to increased societal divorce rates" isn't a necessary harm, and even if there was a necessary causative relationship divorce isn't always harmful, and humans should not be morally obligated to get married or to stay married unless we're somehow morally obligated to perpetuate human society in that specific manner, which we're not.

I never said sex is inherently harmful. Invasive =/ harmful.

Yes, sex with your spouse is inherently good. Why? Because it is a relationship of love, where you give infinite commitment to each other, the kind of commitment that two human beings deserve to share in. — Agustino

You said casual sex is necessarily harmful/immoral, because they're using eachother like tools, personhood, disconsidering, yata yata yata....

So if it's not "invasiveness" that's inherently harmful about casual sex, what is it then?

Also, does this mean that divorce is always immoral because it means you've been having sex without infinite love and commitment?

Your question is bullshit. Rephrase it like "Why is sex an OK thing to do to your spouse and not an OK thing to do to a consenting non-spouse?" - well it's the way you value them ultimately. To one of them you have dedicated yourself to care for her unto eternity, and to the other, you're not dedicated to her at all, just want to use her body. That's wrong. — Agustino

But she knows that, and she just wants me to use her body, and she just wants to use my body, and I know that, and we're O.K with that, because we want to have fun, not dedicate ourselves to each-other forever...

So why is it still wrong? Why is it inherently wrong to use the body of a consenting adult? (just like the paid coal miner who has coal dust invade their lungs and harm them, consent is relevant.)

I've actually read all those books. — Agustino

So you do realize that much of your psychology and emotional behavior is geared directly toward you successfully impregnating a female? (including for instance, why you wear clothes that you think look nice (INDECENT!))

Your instinctive desire to bond for life with a female is the result of a particular evolutionary strategy where you ensure the spread of your own genetics by putting in work and effort along-side a partner in the rearing of the children that your biological sexual urges caused you to create together. "Love" is actually a chemical cocktail designed to cement a long term attraction between two individuals which have been intimate, which subsequently causes them to stick together and cooperate in the rearing of the children.

The so called "necessary teleological ends of sex" are themselves accidents of evolution.

Why then do you pretend that biological imperatives such as "have sex, impregnate a woman, and fall in love" should be the basis for moral arguments like "It's our moral duty to get married, have kids, and stay together". Who or what does your morality serve? Evolution?

Are you not traveling while you're joyriding silly boy? — Agustino

Not if I'm going in circles, therefore it would be immoral right?

Nope, this is the wrong conclusion. If you ate JUST for pleasure, in other words, if you purposefully frustrated the end of eating (nutrition) then it would be immoral. That's like chewing food but not swallowing it, and instead spitting it out. Yes, doing that would be immoral precisely because it would frustrate the end of eating. — Agustino

So I take it you think the use of contraceptives is immoral because it frustrates the "necessary end" of sex?

Yes, actually the necessary end of a dildo IS sexual pleasure. And if I were to use the dildo to moralise against you, by perhaps waving it in your face, that would be immoral. — Agustino

Dildos are themselves inherently immoral though because their existence frustrates the necessary ends of sex right?

What makes you think God can be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error. — Agustino

What makes you think God cannot be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error.

What does being necessary to remain alive have to do with the natural teleology in question? Clearly you haven't read Aristotle very well AT ALL. And no, you can't make an assumption which you then proceed to negate. — Agustino

I think the burden of proof is on you to show why an individual needs to procreate and find long term intimate monogamy in order to be healthy. Your teleological ends argument is stupid because nobody cares what you think are the necessary and accidental ends of given objects and behaviors, and nobody thinks they're morally obligated to adhere to those "necessary ends" even if they assented to your teleological framework.

You're currently celibate with no children. You're being immoral right?

The longer you wait to get married, the more you frustrate your own teleological ends...

Who says they're not required for happiness? You? I disagree. — Agustino

Now you want to tell me what is required for my own happiness?

That doesn't mean it's not immoral, it just means it's acceptable in some circumstances because it's a lesser evil. Much like masturbation is for many people. — Agustino

If it's acceptable than it's not immoral. Cannibalizing the dead out of necessity for survival is not immoral; forgiveness is not required. Things aren't immoral because they're inherently immoral, (I mean you can believe and say they are but that's not a convincing argument) they're immoral for specific reasons under any moral framework that is actually reason-based (as opposed to arbitrarily and absolute platitudes).

No, not consent. But rather things like are you married to her (read, are you devoted to her for all eternity)? Do you care for her as a person? Do you value her for who she is as a human being? Is sex an expression of your love for her, or a selfish means of using her body to achieve pleasure for yourself? — Agustino

There you go again, suggesting that consent doesn't matter in regards to the morality of sex...

So I guess if you love someone, value them for who they are as a human being, care for them as a person, and want to use sex as an expression of your love for them, then raping them is not immoral. Because consent is not relevant to the morality of sex, remember?

Same for casual sex. It seems you enjoy your double standards. — Agustino

But we do allow people to have casual sex, because we don't live in the nightmarish puritanical and authoritarian theocracy that you want us all to live in.

So you think it's a double standard that we intervene in the lives of suicidal people but do not intervene in the lives of consenting adults who have casual sex?

You're explicitly comparing casual sex to suicide (again) as if there's some degree of moral equivalence... I can only imagine the whirlwind of emotion and dissonance that's unfolding inside your brain right now...

And will the person in question be charged with just theft or more? And why? — Agustino

They'll be charged with desecration of a human body too (because offensive to the family and is generally against the consent of the deceased). If it was in someone's will to be cremated and baked into cookies, and then to be eaten by someone, and the family wanted that to happen, there's not much the law could do to prevent them from doing so (where the lawyers at?).

Right, so the activity is inherently immoral, such that it requires forgiveness even in those limit cases you quote. I agree ;) — Agustino

Actually, it's not immoral such that emotional forgiveness is to be expected.. I'm glad we can agree ;)

Sorry to tell you, being insane aren't grounds for arrest. Try again please. — Agustino

Actually they are sufficient grounds. You can commit an insane person to a mental asylum and if the doctors think they're a danger to themselves or others then they will be kept there.

Why don't we arrest you for being rude and disrespectful? Well, because we don't always punish immoralities legally. That doesn't change the fact they are immoral though. — Agustino

Actually it's because what people find to be rude and disrespectful can be entirely subjective, such that it would be impossible to find one universally agreeable set of very specific standards. If we let one individual decide what constitutes rudeness and disrespect then everyone with different sensibilities and standards would become a criminal overnight. If we decided democratically on rigid and specifc (and petty) standards like not wearing hats indoors or wearing a flattering dress then a massive chunk of the population would still be made into a criminal purely because they do not share the same standards of decency and respectability that other people share.

There currently are many laws which are based around matters of rudeness and respect/decency though, and they're passable because they're almost universally agreed upon and they at least try to base themselves in tangible freedom/harm based moral reasoning (nudity laws, spitting laws, harassment laws, and more).

You want to be the person to tell everyone else how to behave I reckon... You know all the correct behaviors and how to live while most of the people around you are like mewling infants who don't know how to not burn their hands on hot stove elements...

You would make a great and terrible tyrant...

So people are also capable of insulting each other without harming one another right? — Agustino

Why yes! Tis true!

You can insult me repeatedly but you're not actually harming me (in fact I find them quite amusing).

It all has to do with emotional robustness you see. Since I don't base my self-esteem or self-worth by how you feel about me or what you say about me, I have nothing to lose!

In a similar fashion, experienced and consenting adults are able to have pleasurable casual sex and not come to tears about it afterward...

Why? Just because pleasure is associated with eating? That is not sufficient to qualify it as a fundamental end of eating. Just because most people choose food they enjoy eating? Again, that's irrelevant. — Agustino

Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. For some people, the pleasure of food is a part of what makes life worth living, and so pleasure from eating very well can be a necessary and intentional end for a given individual.

First you have not illustrated that it's a nightmare. Second of all, it has zero to do with sexual repression, and the fact that you say that really tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Repressing sexuality is very different than simply expressing it in the circumstances when it is appropriate. You're just throwing this word around, and it seems you have no clue what it means at all. So please, have a look at what Freud for example wrote about repression. Repression isn't simply being a celibate. A celibate doesn't repress their sexuality generally, but rather they sublimate it, which is very very different. You have very little knowledge of this, perhaps because of your stunted development due to your overindulgence in sex. — Agustino

:D

The gentlemen definitely doth protest too much me thinks...

So your vision of a moral world is a nightmare to me because it means that I'm not allowed to masturbate (those darn noahide laws!), hot women are thrown in jail for being too hot (that's kinda hot though), and sex outside of the marriage bed would likewise get me thrown in jail. You will say that you don't think society should actually legally sanction me for breaching your personal moral taboos, but you do insist that Im a hell-bound sinner and that if I was moral I would behave just like you do.

Now, if you can work it out to where society saves money by incarcerating me in the same prison as all the hot women, then I would be quite O.K with that...

First you tried to send me to Aristotle and now you're sending me to Freud? Oh my... IT'S SUBLIMATION NOT REPRESSION DAMMIT! THERE'S A DIFFERENCE! *begins fapping furiously and angrily*"

No it's absolutely laughable how you think you could object that way, and it just illustrates your complete ignorance of the matters at hand. You're conflating pleasure and happiness. The two are not the same. The drug addict may feel pleasure, but we wouldn't call him happy. — Agustino

We've been over this before Aug: pleasure/pain contributes to happiness/unhappiness.

I'm not conflating pleasure and happiness by suggesting that people can use pleasures like sex and eating in order to achieve a state of happiness....

because in his mind he thought girl at bar means she is sexually available as you are continuously reiterating. — TimeLine

Not quite. I keep reiterating that if a woman is dressed sexually and at a bar then it is reasonable and appropriate to think that sex might have something to do with what she is looking for.

I'm saying its reasonable to approach a woman in order to find out, NOT that it's moral to assume she is ready and willing...

By merely approaching you with the intention of finding out if you're interested in interacting with him, is he sexually objectifying you? (if you think so, then I would have to say that's life).

So why is sex for pleasure less satisfying then sex with an actual romantic lover? That is a problem in sexual ethics, there is no slippery slope but clearly you are unable to ascertain why because I see nothing but your usual desire to get a kick out of annoying religious people (and by the way, nothing like Aug considering I do not write 10,000 words of random nonsense and I am not religious).

You would need to substantiate how sex devoid of meaning - meaning of which can only be employed between a reciprocal sexual and emotional intimacy - is ethically justifiable because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm. As such, having sexual intercourse with an animal for instance could become justifiable. I understand the dilemma to this paradox because consent should render the lack of emotions justifiable, but two people having meaningless sex is no different to one person having meaningless sex; it is without meaning. — TimeLine

Sex is less pleasurable with a casual partner because in addition to the orgasm you get the emotional feeling of love (additional pleasure).

The slippery slope I referred to was that you're suggesting people having casual sex will soon lead to rape. Make a strong argument as to why this will happen or the description of "slippery slope fallacy" applies perfectly.

So, you might feel like I'm here only to troll or to annoy, but believe it or not I have views of my own and when people, like you and Aug, suggest that I'm an immoral sinner or that the casual sex I engage in leads to rape, I'll happily write thousands and thousands of words until one of us is persuaded to the other-side or becomes fed up and goes away.

Just because I do something only for an orgasm doesn't make it inherently immoral. The burden of proof is not on me to justify why casual sex is not immoral. I can just allude that it does no necessary harm, and so a harm-based moral framework will not condemn it. What you have to explain is why casual sex is immoral, and "leads to rape" or "because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm" aren't sufficient or sensical reasons.

In addition to this, as mentioned, there are psychosocial impacts to a culture of promiscuity as well as epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent should be to ascertain reasons why women begin to treat themselves as objects. You should take responsibility for how you act, not succumb to how others act, otherwise what is the point of your existence? — TimeLine

It's not my duty to wonder why some women do what some women do. Why don't some women take responsibility for how they act instead of suggesting that I'm causing them to act that way by engaging in promiscuous casual sex with other women????

As for integrity, it is all semantics. I am of the position that meaning is founded in our responsibility to become an autonomous moral agent, that my existence and being itself is determined by my principles of morality where my motives are concerned. To be autonomous and reason and think independent from that type of blind following of ones own desires. Integrity is to say that I hold esteem and value to these principles because it provides meaning to my existence. — TimeLine

I still don't understand why this means casual sex is immoral...

You say:

I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. — VagabondSpectre


And then:

Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers. — VagabondSpectre


:-|

Customers, eh?

"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please... — VagabondSpectre


Perhaps you can first define what you mean when you label women as 'customers'? — TimeLine

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them).

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"?

The "satisfied" part actually indicates that I do treat them as if they are a person.

You've tacitly blamed me for the prevalence of rape, the promiscuous sexuality of women in western culture, and now you're expecting me to somehow answer for my grave insult of referring to sexual partners as "satisfied and unoffended customers" as if you've got a moral hatchet raised above my head....

Give me a break...

Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary. — Agustino

Even if we assume there is a singular final cause of everything, without the intermediate causes we cannot bridge the divide and in any event a proximate cause is often adequate for our purposes without probing any further.

What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure. — Agustino

I mean natural selection, of course. What do you mean?

This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring. — Agustino

Positively awe-inspiring, I agree. Even developmental biology is incredible to the point of amazement. How can a single celled ovum fuse with a single celled spermatozoon and develop into a fully developed mammal? It's crazy! All of the instructions are built right in! All you have to do is add a little bit of nutrients and voila!

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them).

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"?

The "satisfied" part actually indicates that I do treat them as if they are a person.

You've tacitly blamed me for the prevalence of rape, the promiscuous sexuality of women in western culture, and now you're expecting me to somehow answer for my grave insult of referring to sexual partners as "satisfied and unoffended customers" as if you've got a moral hatchet raised above my head.... — VagabondSpectre

Okay, so now the ten thousand dollar question. This transactional sex that you and your partners engage in - does it ever lead to regret?

Well once I was drunk and a very sexually aggressive chick took advantage of me. That's the only sex I actually regret, and while I hold myself only partially accountable, I've still learned a lesson and been able to move on. (it hasn't spoiled sex for me entirely). There was also the broken condom affair, but I learned a lesson there too...

Sometimes casual sex can be harmful, but if you practice safe sex and have some standards then the reward can be well worth the risk, like many things in life. (para-sailing, swimming, hiking, etc...)

If you crashed you car, would you regret having driven that day? Probably. Would you never drive again? Would you say driving is immoral?

Almost forgot the obligatory music video. This one should be educational for both of you!

If you crashed you car, would you regret having driven that day? Probably. Would you never drive again? Would you say driving is immoral? — VagabondSpectre

Depending on the circumstances, I might modify my driving technique. I don't know you and I'm not judging you, but don't most people eventually move beyond the "hook up" phase of young adulthood (and with good reason)? I mean part of me is definitely jealous of all the sex you are evidently enjoying. Another part of me thinks you should enjoy it while you can (because it won't last forever). And one teeny tiny part of me wonders if you might be screwing up your chances for having a life-long partner (assuming that is something you will eventually want).

Well I've already been through my tom-cat days, and compared to some of my friends from child-hood I've led a somewhat conservative sexual life-style (they actually went out every single weekend for hook-ups with different women each night, whereas I tended to maintain "friends with benefits" relationships more commonly).

Accidents are a part of life though, and I've learned a lot from my experiences; I don't regret them

I don't regret not currently being married (in fact I think that if I had gotten married, since I've changed so much since then (in ways I like) that I would probably be drowning in a regretful marriage and wind up in divorce court. I actually plan to seek a long term partner later in life if by then I haven't decided I'm utterly incapable of living happily in a committed marriage, but until then I prefer to focus on myself and my own happiness rather than to bring a partner on board.

1. There is no such thing as "meaningless sex".
2. Casual sex is not different (as sex) than sex with the "proper" partner.
3. Sexual activity bears certain risks, no matter what the intentions of the couple or either individual.*
4. When men and women appear in a bar and behave (dress, actions, speech, etc.) as if they were interested in sex, then their behavior should be taken at face value.**
5. Desiring and obtaining abundant sex with willing partners is not abnormal or deviant. It's what healthy people do, unless otherwise occupied

* The risks include disease, pregnancy, inconvenient entanglements, etc.
** Behaving AS IF one was available and willing and then abruptly claiming that dress, actions, speech, etc. have nothing to do with sex is either naive or deceptive.
*** While having sex isn't obligatory (even in marriage) it is a very pleasant and appropriate experience.

If rape is an expression of power, then mutually agreed upon sexual activity will not lead to rape. Sex that leaves one with regrets because it didn't meet one's standards for "ideal sex" doesn't make it rape.

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

In this humble discussion Aug and I have been having, "casual sex" and sometimes "meaningless sex" is just short hand for "sex outside of the loving marriage bed".

What year is that pinup from BTW? I thought back then they had good christian morals... She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies.

She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, very pneumatic. Probably air-brushed. I'm guessing 1960s or later, judging by the hemline, strapless design, and hair. Not before the 50s.

You didn't catch my bit about glory holes?

If you want to argue that there's always some emotion during sex, that's fine and I'm not a psychologist who knows better, but very evidently some sexual encounters can be less emotional than others where sexual satisfaction is the goal for both parties rather than intimate or emotional connection.

So I ask again, what's so wrong about that? — VagabondSpectre

Other people are involved with glory holes too. The same argument applies.

I'm not asking a comparative question about emotion. Caring isn't defined by suddenly becoming irrelevant because you don't want to life for someone forever. It's always tied to the context.

If you want to have sex, another has value to you, is desired by you, it's tied to your emotional state (your desires/what makes you happy/ what makes you frustrated) and how you value other people. Sexual satisfaction is an emotional goal in which another is significant, no matter what form it might take.

Nothing is wrong, per se, with different sorts of sexual relationship. They can be short, long, exclusive, open, etc. but the way people understand the sexual relationships and what others happen to think matters a great deal. It affect how people relate to others and whether they are considered in the context of sexual interactions.

The myth "sex is just about pleasure" is wrong because it's ignorant of how other people are involved in the sexual encounter. Instead of terming sex in terms of the significance of the other (e.g. "I want to have sex with someone as an expression mutual desire"), it does so only in terms of what one individual wants (e.g. "I'm having sex just to get pleasure). Not only is objectification, but the person isn't even aware it's objectification, for they just don't conceive the other person and their significance is playing a part at all.

Let's use the bar example to show what I mean. Should a man just walk-up to a woman, act like she is interested in him and hit on her after some seconds have passed? This should be fine because the woman "should be able to handle it" right? After all she's all dressed up, in the place where (supposedly) people go to find any stranger for sex-- that's what she must be there for right, to meet any random man? She must just be the object there to agree to give a strange man pleasure.

If we pause to actually think about the other person for a moment, we'll find this obviously not true. People often go to bars just to be entertained. They dress up and do out with their friends. It doesn't mean they are there looking for a casual sex partner. Even if they are looking for a partner, it doesn't mean they'll want attention from a particular man.

The ethics of any approach become more considerate and more complex. Instead of interrupting the group of friends clearly talking amongst themselves, to spend a night with one (or more), one will leave them alone because they are clearly busy. In making any approach, on will consider the impact they will have on others by doing so, how the pressures of being hit one might impact on someone. One won't just automatically go around hitting on everyone because they are interested and might get a night of pleasure. The idea women should "just be able to handle" a man's becomes abhorrent. We see it's nothing more than a man thinking he's entitled to try and get what he wants, without consideration of the circumstances or interests of any woman involved. In some cases, the (dis)interests of women are enough to mean an approach is unethical, even in a bar.

To think about sex as "is just about getting pleasure" is to ignore an element which defines all sexual relationships, other people, and so miss an element critical ethical behaviour in that context.

Other people are involved with glory holes too. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh, I suppose in an art glass studio other people would be involved in the glory hole of the furnace from which a viscous ball of molten glass is taken or later reheated. I don't see what that has to do with sex, however.

The myth "sex is just about pleasure" is wrong because it's ignorant of how other people are involved in the sexual encounter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Some sexual encounters are more pleasurable if one is observant about how other people are involved in the encounter. In the glory hole situation (which a few of the TPF participants may not be familiar with) both participants will have a better time if they are on the same page. Sometimes it happens that observance of one partner's experience is sort of irrelevant--by mutual agreement. Sex just isn't always about mutuality.

We see it's nothing more than a man thinking he's entitled to try and get what he wants — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why would a man NOT be entitled to at least try to get what he wants? Are not women also entitled to try and get what they want? (You can't always get what you want, you know.)

In some cases, the (dis)interests of women are enough to mean an approach is unethical, even in a bar. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Even "an approach" is unethical? Is one supposed to recognize the aura of inviolability from across the room?

...without consideration of the circumstances or interests of any woman involved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, that seems like a rather tall order for a social situation that one would try to figure out the circumstances of a woman (or a man) when making an approach. In gay bars, all sorts of approaches are made, and if one isn't interested one says so (verbally or non-verbally) and that's that. Of course some guys try harder than others to get what they want--they maybe don't take "no" for an answer. One deals with it. Why would a woman not be able to do as much?

Even if we assume there is a singular final cause of everything — geospiza

Did I tell you to assume that? No.

I mean part of me is definitely jealous of all the sex you are evidently enjoying. — geospiza

Tell me, what is the meaning of this Buddhist story? :s

Suppose, Māgandiya, there was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine for him, and by means of that medicine the man would be cured of his leprosy and would become well and happy, independent, master of himself, able to go where he likes. Then he might see another leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. What do you think, Māgandiya? Would that man envy that leper for his burning charcoal pit?

in fact I think that if I had gotten married, since I've changed so much since then (in ways I like) that I would probably be drowning in a regretful marriage and wind up in divorce court — VagabondSpectre

Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.

Here's a guy who, because he can't reach to the grapes anymore, says they're sour, and wants everyone else to forgo the grapes because he has done so.

And what's more, he says I'm a cuckservative, but lo and behold he thinks he's a conservative because he has had casual sex with friends with benefits. I'm not quite sure who the cuckservative is, but it certainly ain't me.

2. Casual sex is not different (as sex) than sex with the "proper" partner. — Bitter Crank

False.

3. Sexual activity bears certain risks, no matter what the intentions of the couple or either individual.*
4. When men and women appear in a bar and behave (dress, actions, speech, etc.) as if they were interested in sex, then their behavior should be taken at face value.** — Bitter Crank

True.

5. Desiring and obtaining abundant sex with willing partners is not abnormal or deviant. It's what healthy people do, unless otherwise occupied — Bitter Crank

This is again false. Even the Communists, in practice, considered sex outside of marriage immoral.

Now, desiring and obtaining abundant sex with the person you love and are committed to is absolutely not abnormal, and it is what healthy people do.

Now, desiring and obtaining abundant sex with the person you love and are committed to is absolutely not abnormal, and it is what healthy people do — Agustino

Same with sex with multiple partners. Or celibacy. And gay sex, straight sex, group sex, BDSM, and so on. Different people want and enjoy different things, and to think that there's just one proper and correct sex life is misguided.

This is again false. Even the Communists, in practice, considered sex outside of marriage immoral.

This seems like a non sequitur.

The analogy that can be drawn is "if someone wants to have consensual sex with you, it's wrong to have sex with them in the same way (or by some degree of comparison) that giving them cyanide to kill themselves is wrong. — VagabondSpectre

No the analogy absolutely can't be drawn that way. The analogy compares the logic of the situation, NOT the gravity of the offences. Only someone like you can fail to see this. The analogy points that the underlying logic is the same. In the case of giving them cyanide, their consent doesn't make that action moral. Neither does their consent make the action of sex moral. Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with which action is worse? :s Are you that incapable of comprehending what you read?!

By your logic someone who has enjoyable and casual sex but then force fed cabbage has been equally harmed as someone who has been raped but then not force fed cabbage, right? — VagabondSpectre

Read what I wrote above before peddling this stupid strawman for the 1000s time

If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property. — VagabondSpectre

No, you haven't breached my consent, you've violated my property and a few other rights, not my consent.

So someone who is raped has their consent breached (one unit of consent-harm) and is harmed by the casual and consensual sex (one unit of sex-harm). So the person who gets raped likewise has (one unit of-consent harm) and (one-unit of sex harm). — VagabondSpectre

:s

So if you have sex with someone who consents to have sex, you would be doing something immoral to them like if you were to eat someone alive who consents to be eaten alive? — VagabondSpectre

No, if by like you mean a comparison of the gravity of the two offences. However, if by like you mean that they share the same logical structure, sure.

But, MacDonald's workers often burn their hands on the hot equipment, so I guess that makes MacDonald's work immoral, even though they consent. — VagabondSpectre

No, because burning their hands isn't involved in the work, it's something accidental. That's like me somehow getting injured by having sex with my wife - that doesn't mean the sex is immoral, because that's an accident, not something that belongs to the activity in itself.

Obviously the pain of tattoos is not significant enough for people to care about, so why is a moral issue? — VagabondSpectre

Because you cannot have a tattoo without injury the body, but you can work at McDonald's without injury.

It's this kind of confused thinking that will get you to say that rape is the same as casual sex combined with leaving sooner than your partner wants you to (i.e, after sex).

Sex is had in both cases and consent is breached in both cases. Right? — VagabondSpectre

No, consent is only breached when you actively force someone to do themselves against their will. If I do something that doesn't match what someone else wants me to do, that's absolutely not breaking their consent. Breaking their consent is forcing THEM to do something they don't want to do, typically through the use of force. You have a bit more studying to do.

I think when you explained that "freedom to stay married" is like "the freedom of a slave to escape", I cannot be blamed for reading in-between the lines despite your constant protesting that you yourself are not at risk. — VagabondSpectre

Oh yes, you can absolutely be blamed for assuming something that's not true. Just because something is the case for society at large is no indication that it is the case for me.

Peddling the idea that you and society are harmed when your warped morals pertaining to sex are breached behind closed doors is a very dangerous idea because if enough people really believed it they would probably go around enforcing it, just like your bible says to do. — VagabondSpectre

We only need to enforce it culturally, not legally - that would be a good thing, it would save a lot of people from suffering and pain. Certainly better than allowing you to enforce your idiocy culturally.

But if your future wife is out there having consensual sex right now, she's harming you. If you could magically communicate with her, you would probably tell her how badly she has emotionally injured you. That's selfish by my standards... — VagabondSpectre

No, that's probably not what I would tell her, because remember that she's harming herself first and foremost. So I would most likely seek to understand her and help her overcome whatever emotional and self-esteem issues are pushing her to do such a thing to herself, and help her become more independent and moral.

But she knows that, and she just wants me to use her body, and she just wants to use my body, and I know that, and we're O.K with that, because we want to have fun, not dedicate ourselves to each-other forever...

So why is it still wrong? — VagabondSpectre

Because you're harming each other.

are not perceived by everyone in the same way and are often not considered to be harmful at all — VagabondSpectre

That doesn't mean they're not objectively harmful. Someone may not perceive cannibalism as harmful. So what? Does that tell me cannibalism is not harmful? This is a very stupid objection that people don't all agree. Who gives a fuck what they say? I don't. I just care about the truth.

So you do realize that much of your psychology and emotional behavior is geared directly toward you successfully impregnating a female? (including for instance, why you wear clothes that you think look nice (INDECENT!)) — VagabondSpectre

No, that's actually not true. If my behaviour was directed towards successfully impregnating a female I'd donate my sperm to a sperm bank and impregnate thousands of females. Clearly I'm not very keen to do that. Their idea that everything we do is directed toward impregnating a female is extremely naive and short-sighted, and disregards the human component (as opposed to the animal) of our being.

Your instinctive desire to bond for life with a female is the result of a particular evolutionary strategy where you ensure the spread of your own genetics by putting in work and effort along-side a partner in the rearing of the children that your biological sexual urges caused you to create together. — VagabondSpectre

That it also has an evolutionary role, there's no doubt about it, but to assume that the evolutionary role is everything about it, that's naive. There's a lot more reasons why I want to bond for life with a female, some of which have little to do with offspring.

"Love" is actually a chemical cocktail designed to cement a long term attraction between two individuals which have been intimate, which subsequently causes them to stick together and cooperate in the rearing of the children. — VagabondSpectre

There is no doubt that love has chemical effects that are detectible in the body - but to go from that and say that that's all what love is, that's the height of idiocy, excuse my words. That's called jumping to conclusions to say the least.

Why then do you pretend that biological imperatives such as "have sex, impregnate a woman, and fall in love" should be the basis for moral arguments like "It's our moral duty to get married, have kids, and stay together". Who or what does your morality serve? Evolution? — VagabondSpectre

My morality serves all ends of the human being, including their biology. But biology isn't the only issue. We're much more than our biology.

So I take it you think the use of contraceptives is immoral because it frustrates the "necessary end" of sex? — VagabondSpectre

For the most part yes, but it depends. So long as it doesn't frustrate the other purpose of sex (intimacy) I'd have no issue with some forms of contraception.

So I guess if you love someone, value them for who they are as a human being, care for them as a person, and want to use sex as an expression of your love for them, then raping them is not immoral. Because consent is not relevant to the morality of sex, remember? — VagabondSpectre

Are you an idiot or what's the matter with you? How can sex be an expression of your love for them when you rape them? Can you please explain this?

If it's acceptable than it's not immoral. — VagabondSpectre

No, there is no logical connection between something being acceptable and not being immoral, so you're drawing this link based on empty air.

You're currently celibate with no children. You're being immoral right? — VagabondSpectre

No because I'm not actively doing something that frustrates the ends of sex.

Dildos are themselves inherently immoral though because their existence frustrates the necessary ends of sex right? — VagabondSpectre

True, but this doesn't change their purpose.

We've been over this before Aug: pleasure/pain contributes to happiness/unhappiness. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, happiness does involve pleasure, however to affirm idiotically as you have that someone will be happy because they experience pleasure is stupid beyond measure.

So "not reproducing" and not "getting married" is immoral? — VagabondSpectre

No, since you're not actively doing something to frustrate the ends of your sexuality.

Or is it just immoral to touch yourself for pleasure because you're misusing the necessary teleological ends of your penis?

(it's my penis and I'll do with it what I want to thanks) — VagabondSpectre

Yes that is immoral. You can do whatever you want with your penis, that doesn't mean it's good.

The rest of your post is blabber, red herrings and strawmen so I won't bother. When you have something more significant to say, you can let me know.

Different people want and enjoy different things, and to think that there's just one proper and correct sex life is misguided. — Michael

You haven't proven this. I have given reasons for supporting my views, a whole truckload of them if you bother to read through my conversation with Vagabond. However it's getting a bit boring since he has done absolutely zero to refute any of them. He prefers strawmen and red herrings.

Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.

Here's a guy who, because he can't reach to the grapes anymore, says they're sour, and wants everyone else to forgo the grapes because he has done so. — Agustino

I envy him because it is a nearly ubiquitous male fantasy to have an endless stream of desirable sex partners. The only good reason I can think of to deny it would be to protect the feelings of an exclusive partner (i.e. a white lie). You're not my exclusive partner, so I'm not going to lie to you.

As far as I can tell, Vagabond is reaching more grapes than all of us put together. He has been quite honest in his disclosure that some have been sour and others sweet. I must admit, I can't really relate to his experiences nor do I prioritize my values in the same way as he does, but I don't judge him for that. Perhaps he does glorify a promiscuous lifestyle, but I don't think he is deliberately discouraging others from pursuing the type of committed and emotionally fulsome sexual relationship that you propose to be the be-all and end-all.

I'm saying its reasonable to approach a woman in order to find out, NOT that it's moral to assume she is ready and willing... — VagabondSpectre

It is not mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults that I find immoral, but this very assumption, this notion that it is reasonable to approach a woman to 'find out' which is enough to expose your intent and the very point I am attempting to convey. The intent that compels you to 'find out' whether a woman is sexually available is a flaw in your perception of women and this intention verifies who you are as a person. So, what happens to the woman who you approach and who is not sexually available? Who gives a shit, right? Abandon, and then next? Next what exactly? Your intention in approaching the woman to find out if she is available for casual sex is immoral; that is sexual objectification. Morality is about what is going on in your mind and the decisions that you make and the perceptions that you believe, and not about them agreeing to it or not.

So, without that perception or assumption, your intentions change. As such, you would not seek out casual sex.

So, you might feel like I'm here only to troll or to annoy, but believe it or not I have views of my own and when people, like you and Aug, suggest that I'm an immoral sinner or that the casual sex I engage in leads to rape, I'll happily write thousands and thousands of words until one of us is persuaded to the other-side or becomes fed up and goes away. — VagabondSpectre

Why do you continuously put me into the same category as Aug? I do not think you are morally depraved neither do I have a problem with sex outside of marriage, but having meaningless sex without love is, to me, degrading to my personhood. I actually believe in genuine love and I have yet to encounter someone who can see 'me' rather than my body and I refuse to share my body for a fleeting moment of sexual gratification. You yourself say:

Sex is less pleasurable with a casual partner because in addition to the orgasm you get the emotional feeling of love (additional pleasure). — VagabondSpectre

The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics.

So, let us try to discuss the philosophical implications of the following:

The slippery slope I referred to was that you're suggesting people having casual sex will soon lead to rape. Make a strong argument as to why this will happen or the description of "slippery slope fallacy" applies perfectly. — VagabondSpectre

No. I never suggested that, you assume that because you are failing to see the philosophical problem at hand. We need to ascertain whether there is any intrinsic meaning in our sexual relations with one another - which we have come to agree as meaning formed by mutual affection and love that becomes instrumental to the pleasures that bring value to sexual activity and to our own identity or personhood - and as such, what lacks intrinsic meaning is the disvalue due to the lack of this mutual affection and love.

The source of pleasure in our sexual activity becomes the key to permissibility and so, if as stated above it has intrinsic meaning over or above the source of pleasure, likewise should the source of pleasure outweigh the intrinsic meaning, the person or the other' value is reduced below the desire to attain an orgasm. It is not to say that it will certainly lead to acts of rape or harm of another neither does it require absolute prohibition, but sociopaths can also be non-violent and we are talking morality here. The very source of our abhorrence of non-consensual acts of sexual activity.

It may appear logical to believe that casual sex is justifiable and rape is completely abhorrent, but there is certainly an inconsistency when trying to argue philosophically why acts such as rape wherein no principles - value, meaning - binds the act itself together is any different to casual sex which also lacks this binding principles.

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"? — VagabondSpectre

I see, but then you say:

She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies. — VagabondSpectre

No objectification of women there, right?

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them). — VagabondSpectre

Urg, yeah ok.

This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics. — TimeLine

Keep quiet with your bullshit. Where have I come with the pitchfork? Did I say that sexual promiscuity, etc. should be illegal or what? Identifying an activity as immoral isn't coming with the pitchfork, as I'm not trying to get him to do anything by force. I'm just discussing with him, and explaining why his behaviour is immoral.

You should mind your conversation with Vagabond without discussing me.

I envy him because it is a nearly ubiquitous male fantasy to have an endless stream of desirable sex partners. The only good reason I can think of to deny it would be to protect the feelings of an exclusive partner (i.e. a white lie). You're not my exclusive partner, so I'm not going to lie to you. — geospiza

Well that's certainly not my fantasy. Do you think I'm lying to you? And no if you were to say that to your exclusive partner it wouldn't be just a white lie, it would be quite problematic because you're being dishonest about your intentions and how you feel about her. And that's actually very serious, you will never be capable to have an intimate relationship with someone if you'll keep up this dishonest behaviour.

Why would you want an endless stream of desirable sex partners? Give me a reason. An actual rational reason. If you say sexual pleasure, then you have to explain to me how that sexual pleasure benefits you.

As for why it's not my fantasy... well let's see, I work out, I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh? :s What you give diamonds out in the street for free, or what's wrong with you? No self esteem? No self-respect? I want to have sex with a woman who deserves to have sex with me, and I with her, in a committed married relationship, not with some random tramp from the gym or the night club that jumps on you >:O What the hell is wrong with people these days... You think I'm some sort of tradable commodity that she can have for one night or what? :s >:O

As far as I can tell, Vagabond is reaching more grapes than all of us put together. — geospiza

As far as I can see he has utterly failed, that's why he cannot even get married for fuck's sake - he himself admits that he would fail, what more evidence is required to see that he is someone who should be pitied, just like in the Buddhist story, and not someone to be envied. He cannot reach up to the goods that are available to those more moral than him, and so he resorts to drinking away his sorrow in empty pleasure. Personally I don't admire losers.