I understand the anti-promiscuous attitude of men and women

[soporcogitavi]

Most of our laws govern our morals and shape the way we act morally.

 

Let it go underground then, I have nothing against that happening. What you're confusing here is that you think I want to control people, I don't. I just believe whats wrong is wrong and that's it.

[TakingtheBlame]

I agree, you have not said sex is evil, I was mostly being facetious with that designation but I found it appropriate since so many generalizations are getting thrown around on this thread.

 

But as far as the things you listed, no, the things you listed are not wrong just because we feel they are wrong (which is a pretty crappy way to determine a brightline rule anyway.) They were arbitrarily determined to be wrong before many of us were born, whether by religion or a patriarchal society or what have you, and this is why they feel wrong to so many people...because this just happens to be the primary value system we were brought up in. Obviously I don't want to go on the record as saying I think there is something inherently right about these particular examples (I don't believe 12 year olds should be having sex, for instance) but much of it has much deeper roots than just "casual sex is bad" which go beyond the scope of this thread. 12 year old isn't allowed to drive a car or vote or go off to war either. Does that make driving a car or voting or going off to war wrong when done by someone over the age of 18? Your other two examples are also way beyond the scope of this thread...I see both as more a reflection of the religious and puritanical value system that have unfortunately shaped my country. Many Western European countries (Germany, for instance, which I visited four years ago) have legalized prostitution but regulate the profession heavily (mandated regular STD tests for prostitutes, for instance.)

 

As to your second point, no, you will not have to pay for any STD that I contract or any child that I have out of wedlock because I am responsible despite having had several sex partners. I am also responsible with accepting the consequences of my actions and have the means to take care of anything that should result from any choice I make (including frequent sex with someone outside of a relationship.) And just because you feel (that wishy-washy word again masquerading as some sort of moral compass) that "sex is an intimate part of ourselves that we share with someone we love, possibly someone we want to marry or have kids with" doesn't make it so for everyone. That's just a conclusory argument not based on much fact or authority. Frankly, I share a lot more with my boyfriend, who I would love to spend my life with, than just sex (emotional intimacy, for one.)

 

I could go on and on but the point is, you haven't really answered my question. I see no general definition of "morality" here that we can work off of, just a lot of personal opinion and arbitrary conclusions which are difficult to answer in one cohesive post. The simple fact is: sometimes life is conducive to having a serious, emotionally and physically intimate long term committed relationship, and sometimes there's just time to get your rocks off. Morality is generally subjective but I think can objectively (for the sake of a coherent argument) be defined as doing what thou wilt so long as there is no intention or grave risk of harm to someone else other than yourself. The fact that some people choose to have casual sex irresponsibly (without protection or with potentially dangerous strangers) does not in any way fit under the umbrella of morality, as a probability that harm to another will occur is by no means guaranteed or exhibiting grave risk. This just makes it one more thing we're allowed to do in life if we so choose....like voting, or going off to war.

[soporcogitavi]

Would you be so kind as to cite a source?

 

Oh please, is that necessary, its common knowledge. Pick up the paper or google it or something.

[Lonewing]

Would you be so kind as to cite a source?

 

Allright, try figure 44 from the same study provided by miss penelope!

Also, you would all do well to actually look through that report - it's not as rosy on things like HPV...or others...And the HIV chart, wow...it's got a positive slope...and that's cool with everybody??

[hexaemeron]

Oh please, is that necessary, its common knowledge. Pick up the paper or google it or something.

 

LOL. We might have to keep you around. Defensible arguments are so inconvenient, aren't they?

[hexaemeron]

Allright, try figure 44 from the same study provided by miss penelope!

Also, you would all do well to actually look through that report - it's not as rosy on things like HPV...or others...And the HIV chart, wow...it's got a positive slope...and that's cool with everybody??

 

In Africa, it's quite a common belief that raping a virgin women will cure your HIV. It's a ridiculous state of affairs.

[stormie]

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?

 

Ok, lets run another report:

 

Positive HIV test reports in Canada:

 

Year 2000: 2,099 cases. Year 2009: 2,417

 

 

STD's statistics in the UK:

Chlamydia

 

Since 1999 the number of annual cases of chlamydia has more than doubled. In 2008 there were 123,018 new diagnoses of chlamydia in GUM (genitourinary medicine) clinics – a record number.

 

Genital warts

The number of new diagnoses of genital warts in GUM clinics in the UK has increased by almost 30 percent since 1999. Genital warts are the most common viral STD diagnosed in the UK: in 2008 there were 92,525 diagnoses of genital warts in UK GUM clinics. The highest rates of diagnoses were among women aged 16-19 and men aged 20-24.

 

Syphilis

The number of diagnoses of syphilis has risen substantially in the past decade in the UK. In 2008 there were 11 times the number of primary and secondary diagnoses in GUM clinics, than 1999. This rise has been attributed to a number of local outbreaks, the largest of which was in London between 2001 and 2004.

 

link removed

 

 

Chlamydia

 

Increasing numbers of chlamydia infections have made it the most widespread STD in the USA. In 1997 there were 537,904 reported diagnoses, corresponding to a rate of 205.5 per 100,000 population. However, by 2009 the annual total had more than doubled to 1,244,180 and the rate per 100,000 had risen to 409.2

 

Syphilis

 

During 2008 and 2009, the rate of primary and secondary syphilis increased by 11.6% among non-Hispanic blacks, 6.7% among Asian/Pacific Islanders and 4.3% among American Indians/Alaska Natives.

 

link removed

 

 

Need I say more?? I mean, how much education can you possibly give someone when they live in the West?? It's not an issue of educating with the use of contraceptives but educating with the use of abstinence and self control.

[Lonewing]

FF, it all comes down to Integrity issues, and when one starts making excuses in one direction, it's very rare that they don't have similar issues in other directions too. It is indeed the slippery slope argument, but in the case of humna behavior, when it comes to integrity there is no halfways; you either have it or you don't.

[penelope13]

Oh please, is that necessary, its common knowledge. Pick up the paper or google it or something.

 

The number of things that are believed to be 'common knowledge' and that differs hugely from what is measured unbiasedly is quite enormous.

 

You asked me to provide you with a source for HIV incidences, which I was happy to oblige (although I would assume you possess an equal ability to find these data sets), yet you react so ungraciously when someone asks you for a similar favor.

[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)

 

You would all do very well to actually open up this report and go deeper. Despite what penelope was trying to state, the report actually says the opposite in many places. Yes, there are some places where we can be happy, as there are a couple diseases which are nearly all gone nowadays, but the others...yeah, Especially the prevelence of HPV in women by age is PARTICULARLY telling where our youth's lack of propriety is getting us!!! [it's Figure 48 on page 47, BTW]

[soporcogitavi]

These things were determined to be wrong because those before us felt they were wrong, plain and simple, just like cheating, or stealing or anything else, its morally wrong.

 

But what you write is exactly whats wrong with our society. Now prostitution is legal in many countries, oh wait they're making STD tests mandatory (phew).

 

If sex is so trivial and doesnt hold a bearing, why is it so bad to cheat? If there's no love involved, no caring and just sex, that makes it ok?

 

What your missing is that sex has become cheap because its ok as you say "to get your rocks off"

 

When you engage in casual sex with someone you do not know, you can but yourself at grave risk or harm, without question. So according to your definition ONS are immoral.

[stormie]

Would you be so kind as to cite a source?

 

I did it for him.

[penelope13]

And the HIV chart, wow...it's got a positive slope...and that's cool with everybody??

 

Please read the graph correctly: the number of new infections hasn't changed significantly in the last 20 years, yet the number of SURVIVORS has increased, i.e improved treatment methods

[soporcogitavi]

That wasnt a request as a favor, that was challenging common knowledge, anyways we're going off topic.

[stormie]

Please read the graph correctly: the number of new infections hasn't changed significantly in the last 20 years, yet the number of SURVIVORS has increased, i.e improved treatment methods

 

So let me get this straight: Someone with a characteristic of an animal - meaning they are not able to control themselves, would heavily depend on scientists to cure the results of whatever illnesses their behavior brings. Oh, I see - more irresponsibility - what else is new?

[soporcogitavi]

LOL. We might have to keep you around. Defensible arguments are so inconvenient, aren't they?

 

Of course you have to keep me around, this forum doesnt exist if it isnt for people like ourselves.

[Lonewing]

Please read the graph correctly: the number of new infections hasn't changed significantly in the last 20 years, yet the number of SURVIVORS has increased, i.e improved treatment methods

 

HIV does not kill; it is a weakening of the immune system. As a result, people live well with it until they get the common flu. In our case, we have more and more people being added each year [about 40k new cases each year] which means we have now close to a million people who cannot live without their medication. If you took away their medications, you'd see fewer people living with HIV. So what you are missing here is the public cost due to this income being spent on medicine for a permanent condition - and as the slope is positive, there are more and more people alive with it each year - which means at any time in the future, the number of new cases each year can easily double or triple because there is a larger number of people in the population who have it.

 

At this point there is not yet a cure for HIV, so if you stop treating these individuals, their illness will get worse and they WILL die. And in the meanwhile, they can pass the infection quite easily, particularly throguh sex.

 

I'm quite good at reading these graphs, I only spent 7 years in college through two college degrees doing such work...

[penelope13]

So let me get this straight: Someone with a characteristic of an animal - meaning they are not able to control themselves, would heavily depend on scientists to cure the results of whatever illnesses their behavior brings. Oh, I see - more irresponsibility - what else is new?

 

I'm happy to have a civilized discussion about anything, but I am not keen on judging others simply because their life style doesn't overlap with mine. I would have hoped that by now it is the conveniently quoted 'common knowledge' that having been so unfortunate to have contracted HIV is not equal to having lead an 'animalistic, uncontrolled life'.

 

I sincerely hope that the slop will further increase for people surviving all sorts of conditions be it due to life style changes, their morality, or by scientific means.

[TakingtheBlame]

These things were determined to be wrong because those before us felt they were wrong, plain and simple, just like cheating, or stealing or anything else, its morally wrong.

 

But what you write is exactly whats wrong with our society. Now prostitution is legal in many countries, oh wait they're making STD tests mandatory (phew).

 

If sex is so trivial and doesnt hold a bearing, why is it so bad to cheat? If there's no love involved, no caring and just sex, that makes it ok?

 

What your missing is that sex has become cheap because its ok as you say "to get your rocks off"

 

When you engage in casual sex with someone you do not know, you can but yourself at grave risk or harm, without question. So according to your definition ONS are immoral.

 

I really wish your posts were more cohesive so I'd have a central point to respond to, but I'll do my best.

 

One night stands aren't, by their very definition, immoral at all. The only thing putting anyone at grave risk is people who practice unsafe and irresponsible sex. That is, to me at least, immoral, not the actual casual sex or one night stands per se.

 

Cheating is bad because it involved a third party...the person being cheated on. It takes away time, energy, and sometimes money from the cheater's partner or spouse or perhaps even family. It has nothing to do with the sexual aspect of the situation at all. Emotional cheating, to most, is just as big an issue. Stealing and cheating are wrong because they harm a third party. Casual sex alone does not harm any third party; again, UNLESS someone is not practicing safe, responsible sex, which is a DIFFERENT ISSUE ENTIRELY. Any rule or law that has ever come about through feeling alone is usually arbitrary and not long-lived.

 

And the rest of your arguments are purely subjective, as usual. Just because you feel my saying "get your rocks off" shows that society has gone down the tubes doesn't mean that it's the case (only, perhaps, in your opinion.) I see sex as a physical act. Not some symbol of goodness or righteousness or single-handed harbinger of disease and filth and society's demise. Sure, it can be shared in a loving caring way, in addition to the other factors in a mature, healthy relationship/marriage, but if it's as big a deal as you seem to think it is I wonder how you can fit anything else into your serious relationships.

[penelope13]

Health costs removed[/i]

 

HIV and Aids - $18.2 billion

Cadiovascular diseas - 448.5 billion

Diabetes - 174 billion

Cancer - 219.2 billion

[Lonewing]

By definition, a One night Stand means you don't know your partner. You don't know what they have and you don't know where they'll go or where they've been, so until then, you're shacking up with a huge unknown. Even if you use a condom, a number of STDs exist within the region where condoms don't cover, such as HPV, HSV, Crabs, etc and so forth.

 

Safe practices mean you either have ONE and Only One partner, or youhave no partners. All other practices are NOT considered safe by the medical/public health community.

 

So by definition...a ONS does fit the Unsafe and Irresponsible bill.

[soporcogitavi]

Health costs removed[/i]

 

HIV and Aids - $18.2 billion

Cadiovascular diseas - 448.5 billion

Diabetes - 174 billion

Cancer - 219.2 billion

 

So what? HIV is less then others, doesnt mean its not a BIG problem. We can compare all kinds of data, and I can skew it in many ways in my favor as well.

[soporcogitavi]

By definition, a One night Stand means you don't know your partner. You don't know what they have and you don't know where they'll go or where they've been, so until then, you're shacking up with a huge unknown. Even if you use a condom, a number of STDs exist within the region where condoms don't cover, such as HPV, HSV, Crabs, etc and so forth.

 

Safe practices mean you either have ONE and Only One partner, or youhave no partners. All other practices are NOT considered safe by the medical/public health community.

 

So by definition...a ONS does fit the Unsafe and Irresponsible bill.

 

You have to understand, they will always skew the data (like Penelope) or the arguments so it fits their bill, they dont want to lose their so called "freedom". I was reading a thread on this forum and one poster said "It's because of this immoral or irresponsible behavior that I get laid" that pretty much sums it up for me. One way train on a One way track. Maybe my view is no better, but I know there's no fulfillment in hooking up with a girl at a club, that I can pretty much guarantee you has done it many times before with someone else.

[Lonewing]

Regardless of the fulfillment, I know it's dangerous and further disrespectful to my future partner to sleep with the random girl. I've had a couple thus far who would have been more than happy to give something up - I walked, and continue to walk. My future partner deserves to have someone of good solid moral character - so I practice now as I wish to act while I am with her.

[soporcogitavi]

Regardless of the fulfillment, I know it's dangerous and further disrespectful to my future partner to sleep with the random girl. I've had a couple thus far who would have been more than happy to give something up - I walked, and continue to walk. My future partner deserves to have someone of good solid moral character - so I practice now as I wish to act while I am with her.

 

Of course. My reference to fulfillment is in regards to those here who obviously seek that as a way to gratifcation.