I understand the anti-promiscuous attitude of men and women

[Lonewing]

So, casual sex is akin to rape now? Awfully judgmental for someone who just lost his virginity recently if you ask me.

 

I'll repeat his words again, and see if you can't connect the dots a second time...

 

You'll get better results with that than with trying to stifle natural urges.

 

If the argument holds water here, I don't see why it couldn't be used there. Afterall, it's just natural urges, isn't it? And what's the difference between a girl who's openly ready, a girl who's drunk, or a girl who's drugged? "Just Go With It" only goes so far, but it's not hard if you have integrity issues elsewhere in your life.

[Lonewing]

I neither want nor expect everyone I'm attracted to to be interested in FWB, as some of those people are in committed monogamous relationships, and I'd be messing them up.

 

I'm glad you're still a respectful human being; I've met too many, though, who are not.

[hexaemeron]

I'll repeat his words again, and see if you can't connect the dots a second time...

 

 

 

If the argument holds water here, I don't see why it couldn't be used there. Afterall, it's just natural urges, isn't it? And what's the difference between a girl who's openly ready, a girl who's drunk, or a girl who's drugged? "Just Go With It" only goes so far, but it's not hard if you have integrity issues elsewhere in your life.

 

Gee, how can I respond to this without getting banned? Hmm... I'm just going to smile and let your words do the work for me. I'm SUPER glad you're secure in what you think. You'll surely get anything and everything you deserve by it.

[Blue Spiral]

Again, LW, I'd love to hear your realistic, pragmatic ideas for dealing with this issue. You mentioned vague forms of cultural indoctrination/intimidation, but beyond that...

[soporcogitavi]

At the end of the day, all I really want to know is how you and the "sex is evil" camp define morality.

 

Who said sex is evil? You wont paint me into a corner with generalizations.

 

Its plain and simple, sex goes on behind closed doors, not in front of everyone? Right. Prostitution is illegal? Right. Should 12year olds be having sex? I dont think I have to answer that one. Why are all these things wrong because we feel they are wrong.

 

Its immoral to have many sexual partners and have lots of casual sex, because im the one who's going to have to pay if you get an STD or you cant support your child. Its immoral because sex is an intimate part of ourselves that we share with someone we love, possibly someone we want to marry or have kids with. Its immoral because it leaves people feeling empty and there's people that prey on this. Its immoral because people start taking less responsibility for their actions. Everything is good to go now, go to bar, have a few, go home with someone, and do it again next weekend. How does this sound ok? Im struggling here.

 

All is fine as long as it feels good, what happens when thats gone? Why is it necessary to sleep with a different guy or girl every week. We cant actually respect each other more then just a piece of meat, as a means to suck what we can, and then once we get it,l ets move to the next. That sounds really moral to me.

[soporcogitavi]

He drew a direct comparison between sleeping around (which can and usually does involve two willing participants) and rape. When you draw such a comparison questions will be asked.

 

that was a stretch though.

[hexaemeron]

This ought to go over well. If you're so against paying for things like welfare, why not make donations to things like Planned Parenthood. Or perhaps be an activist for sensible pro-choice choices for women? Abstinence doesn't work. See also: Bristol Palin, for one example. There's nothing wrong with casual sex, but there's everything wrong with unsafe, willfully reckless sex.

 

And, honestly, if you smoke, eat unhealthy foods, drink, or do ANYTHING compromising your health and the health of others, sit down and shut up because you haven't a leg to stand on re: paying for anything.

[soporcogitavi]

This ought to go over well. If you're so against paying for things like welfare, why not make donations to things like Planned Parenthood. Or perhaps be an activist for sensible pro-choice choices for women? Abstinence doesn't work. See also: Bristol Palin, for one example. There's nothing wrong with casual sex, but there's everything wrong with unsafe, willfully reckless sex.

 

And, honestly, if you smoke, eat unhealthy foods, drink, or do ANYTHING compromising your health and the health of others, sit down and shut up because you haven't a leg to stand on re: paying for anything.

 

I already make my donations on every paycheck, thats enough support to show. Abstinence doesnt work because people choose it to be that way (its called the easy way out). Why not act on our every urge? Because we abstain from doing it, whats the difference with casual sex with a stranger? Oh wait because it feels good, lol. So do lots of things.

 

So lets put it this way, if drinking clouds your judgment enough that you cant drive, it surely clouds your judgment when it involves sleeping with someone after knowing them for 2 hours right. That sex isnt any safer because your judgment is clouded.

 

I eat healthy, I dont smoke, I drink wine. So what leg isnt I dont have to stand on? So i'll continue judging and talking about morals and you can continue judging and talking about morals also. Thats fine with me.

[Lonewing]

This ought to go over well. If you're so against paying for things like welfare, why not make donations to things like Planned Parenthood. Or perhaps be an activist for sensible pro-choice choices for women? Abstinence doesn't work. See also: Bristol Palin, for one example. There's nothing wrong with casual sex, but there's everything wrong with unsafe, willfully reckless sex.

 

And, honestly, if you smoke, eat unhealthy foods, drink, or do ANYTHING compromising your health and the health of others, sit down and shut up because you haven't a leg to stand on re: paying for anything.

 

Hmmm...

No smoking...check

A diet of moderation...check

No drinking...check

No doing anything comproising my health?...Check

No doing anything that may compromise the health of others?...Check

 

I do believe a Divorce Tax would be appropriate, particularly since so many of those kids end up on welfare/public assistance/public healthcare anyways. And a tax on alimony, a tax on child support, and a heavy fine if you are caught sleeping with someone who is somebody else's licensed partner. Licenses, AKA, marriage licensed. On top of that, if we simply remove any further Soft money like CCs and make the job market so competitive that those who no longer "want to be there because they're too out of it from last night/the weekend" can't get or hold a job, well, that will pretty well snuff out the nightlife scene...in some ways we're already moving towards some of this...

[Lonewing]

In my state [and many states for that matter] it is legally impossible for anyone who have been drinking to legally consent to any sexual act. AKA, by the legal definition, having sex with a girl who is drunk is rape - regardless of whether the male is drunk or not. And some girls do pull this card...the popular crowd calls it "buyer's remorse," but that's their problem; they didn't know the perosn before they started sleeping together.

[hexaemeron]

Gee, the theocratic dictatorship you describe sounds awesome! Who needs all that pesky freedom of choice, especially when people tend to use it. Freedom means FREEDOM. Not "freedom as long as you parrot my values"

[penelope13]

I just want to point your attention to these numbers to give the discussion some factual background. You can interpret it anyway you want.

 

(for details see: link removed)

 

In 1941: Case numbers for syphilis - 368.2 (rate per 100,000 population, USA)

gonorrhea - 146.7

 

In 2009: syphilis - 14.7

gonorrhea - 99.1

 

In contrast to STDs, the health costs for society due to overweight/obesity or mental illness (depression etc) are much more significant. So let's not mix morality with social costs, shall we?

[hexaemeron]

I just want to point your attention to these numbers to give the discussion some factual background. You can interpret it anyway you want.

 

(for details see: link removed)

 

In 1941: Case numbers for syphilis - 368.2 (rate per 100,000 population, USA)

gonorrhea - 146.7

 

In 2009: syphilis - 14.7

 

I adore you, MissP. You've just proven to everyone that abstinence works! And always has!

[soporcogitavi]

Gee, the theocratic dictatorship you describe sounds awesome! Who needs all that pesky freedom of choice, especially when people tend to use it. Freedom means FREEDOM. Not "freedom as long as you parrot my values"

 

Ahh yes, we shouldn't have any laws, we should all do as we please, and then we can invent a machine that will erase all negative consequeces should they arise. Yup sounds good to me. FYI you're already parroting the values of our society by following it's laws.

[soporcogitavi]

I just want to point your attention to these numbers to give the discussion some factual background. You can interpret it anyway you want.

 

(for details see: link removed)

 

In 1941: Case numbers for syphilis - 368.2 (rate per 100,000 population, USA)

gonorrhea - 146.7

 

In 2009: syphilis - 14.7

gonorrhea - 99.1

 

In contrast to STDs, the health costs for society due to overweight/obesity or mental illness (depression etc) are much more significant. So let's not mix morality with social costs, shall we?

 

Can you also please provide me with the statistics for HIV?

 

Just because we have additional problems doesnt mean this isn't one that still exists. Morality and social costs mix just fine thank you, especially according to my pay stub.

[Lonewing]

Gee, the theocratic dictatorship you describe sounds awesome! Who needs all that pesky freedom of choice, especially when people tend to use it. Freedom means FREEDOM. Not "freedom as long as you parrot my values"

 

You're plenty free to go do whatever you want, just so long as you can afford to do it without taking from anybody else.

[hexaemeron]

Ahh yes, we shouldn't have any laws, we should all do as we please, and then we can invent a machine that will erase all negative consequeces should they arise. Yup sounds good to me. FYI you're already parroting the values of our society by following it's laws.

 

First of all, don't speak for me. I never said have no laws. Never ever did I say there. There's an entire spectrum of personal and community responsibility between Sodom/Gomorrah and the Spanish Inquisition state you and Lonewing seem to want to yank right out of Pat Robertsen's wet dreams. Of course laws are important. But not laws governing morality. We accept that there are functional laws we must agree to in which to have a society. Of course. Not all of them are just, but most of them are and do good.

 

But tell me, what good does telling people who to love, how to love, when they should love, under what circumstances they should love, or have sex, or poop or do ANYTHING improve society? Democracy, while imperfect, is still the best mass rule we have.

 

How would that make things ANY better? You wouldn't stop it. It just goes underground.

[hexaemeron]

You're plenty free to go do whatever you want, just so long as you can afford to do it without taking from anybody else.

 

I make a lot, and pay a lot in taxes. You don't need to lecture me on fiscal responsibility to myself or the state.

[InkkedBree]

I say sex is natural and if two parties agree to whatever they're doing, then that's the end of it. It's up to them. But the only thing I would disagree with is if they do have sex with so many people and so easily due to a lack of a self-esteem, than that subconscious reason is not a good reason to be involved. It'd make matters worse for the self-esteem. I've noticed this in my certain friend. It's not a good mindset. But if the person is in the right mindset and is careful, then that's all there should be.

[stormie]

If there was no judgement going on then people would be doing a lot of reckless things. Sometimes regulations is good such as those nice devices we call seatbelts in cars or government intervention in enviromental issues. If it's society's judgement that is keeping things in order then lets keep the system because it works.

 

You're right on the money, and this is exactly what makes us different from the animal world.

 

Sounds like the same rationale that prevented interracial marriages or even same-sex relationships from being pursued for, well, centuries.

 

The key concept here is that we need to judge something on its own terms. It doesn't matter if 95% of a society believes something or only 5% does. Right/wrong do not sway with public opinion.

 

That's the problem with certain "liberal" groups and ways of thinking - they like to brainwash people with issues like race - something that someone cannot control -against acts that people are ABLE to control - like promiscuous lifestyles that really hurt society. As if all people who were in a mixed race marriage or who are minorities are automatically supposed to support gay marriage or promiscuous lifestyles ... unbelievable.

 

 

Do you think that just because I have a feeling or an urge to kill a boyfriend because he cheated on me that it makes it completely right and that I should go ahead and act out on those aggressive feelings just because it is a feeling that I have? How does that make sense? And before you go and say, "Being promiscuous doesn't hurt anyone" - the fact is that it does. It hurts society by unwanted children, divorce, STD's, and the list of social problems can go on. It's a good thing that society judges criminals and others deviants - it's the only way that people are kept in check - otherwise it would be a free-for-all. Now if you support anarchy, that's a different story.

[FathomFear]

This issue is, these open people do not have any borders on who they wish to approach - they want Everybody they might be attracted to, to be interested in open relationships. And if these people aren't, there's no shortage of time they're willing to string the monogomous person along.

 

If someone who values open relationships "strings along" a person who desires monogamy, then clearly that's a bad thing. But this is a separate issue from practicing open relationships. The underlying problem here is lying and deceit. As I said in my previous post, the ideal scenario is that someone who values monogamy should be with someone who does the same, and someone who values open relationships should find others who feel the same. Lying and deceit is always going to a negative regardless of who's doing it or why.

 

No, I do believe that by keeping this type of behavior to a minimum, it's akin to preventing the development of Kleptomania. Kleptomania develops when one is allowed to steal things uninhibited; the most successful treatment is to catch it young and in essence nip it in the bud so that it does not develop into a fully developed behavioral condition.

 

Lonewing, you continue to draw analogies (rape, stealing) where there is clearly a lack of consent and imposed harm on one party. I fail to see how you can draw such an analogy here.

 

Once any bad habit is developed, it becomes exceedingly hard to break, especially if the bad habit involves a temporary high - and sex is about as high as one could get when it comes to biochemical highs!

 

But this is begging the question again. "We shouldn't want bad habits to become normal" is just pre-supposing that it's a "bad habit", which is what we're actually trying to debate.

 

A social acceptance of Open Culture means this behavior becomes the norm; the end results are not to the improvement of that society, especially if HIV or any other terminal disease becomes a part of the common social pool.

 

Society accepting a behavior does not necessitate that it become "the norm". For example, it's socially acceptable to eat pasta--but that does not mean everyone suddenly needs to consume it exclusively. It just means that we have a society which allows people to eat pasta if that's what they want/need.

[penelope13]

Please see link for HIV data: link removed

[Lonewing]

I just want to point your attention to these numbers to give the discussion some factual background. You can interpret it anyway you want.

 

(for details see: link removed)

 

In 1941: Case numbers for syphilis - 368.2 (rate per 100,000 population, USA)

gonorrhea - 146.7

 

In 2009: syphilis - 14.7

gonorrhea - 99.1

 

In contrast to STDs, the health costs for society due to overweight/obesity or mental illness (depression etc) are much more significant. So let's not mix morality with social costs, shall we?

 

We have better medical treatment and better drugs nowadays, along with a better understanding of how and why we should treat STDS. Syphilis was nearlywiped out altogether. However, in the last few years there as been a resurgence of syphilis. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Ultimately, though, it's HIV that has the most potential of completley altering the landscape. Africa has the spotlight at the moment, we'll see what happens as the situation plays out over the next 20-30 years.

[PhilliesFan001]

I think the world would be a much better place if people stopped caring so much what happens in the sex lives of others.

 

Want to have 100 one night stands? Cool. Go do it, and shut up about it.

 

Want to make sex "sacred" and only have it after marriage? Cool. Wait, and shut up about it.

[DrKitten]

However, in the last few years there as been a resurgence of syphilis. Take it for what it's worth.

Would you be so kind as to cite a source?