Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

No strings attached sex, in your opinion is it highly immoral? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How is it immoral in the slightest?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    A relationship based upon just sex.
    For me...with that type of relationship, I think it is not highly
    immoral, but then it could be classified as an immoral but not
    that high..

    Doing a thing like that, is just for lust..and not for the love
    thing.. I guess, better take it seriously..

    How could one possibly do it..no commitment, but
    doing that thing it's like fooling each around with
    each other..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sex isn't immoral. Sex with consenting partners isn't immoral. The end.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Begging the question.



    When I purchase ice-cream from a supermarket, I am 'using' the cashier to facilitate my own selfish desire (to consume ice-cream). Is the purchase of ice-cream therefore an immoral act; mindful, of course, that the cashier is themselves 'using' me to procure their livelihood?

    Ok we need a definition of morality to set the parameters of this argument or this could go on forever.

    Immorality: noun

    the state or quality of being immoral
    immoral behavior
    pl. immoralities -·ties an immoral act or practice; vice

    Ok the first two definitions don't really help us: but the third talks about an immoral act or practice being a 'vice.'

    vice: noun


    an evil or wicked action, habit, or characteristic
    evil or wicked conduct or behavior; depravity or corruption
    prostitution
    in old English morality plays, a character, often a buffoon, representing a vice or vice in general
    any trivial fault or failing, act of self-indulgence, etc.
    a defect or flaw, as in a work of art
    any physical or functional defect or imperfection of the body
    a bad or harmful trick or habit, as of a horse or dog

    So by this you are actually right about one thing: eating ice-cream is a vice because it is an act of self-indulgence!

    I should have noticed this earlier but thats what posting at 12.00pm after a long run does to you. :rolleyes:

    However the OP asked is 'casual sex' highly immoral?

    First of all casual sex is self indulgence! Casual sex is also a 'corruption' of the natural order of things. Eating ice cream is thus not a very serious form of immorality as opposed to sexual immorality - hence the reason why I did not pick up on it quite so quickly - it is merely self indulgence.

    So why is casual sex also a corruption? First we need a definition of corruption:

    1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
    2. To ruin morally; pervert.
    3. To taint; contaminate.
    4. To cause to become rotten; spoil.
    5. To change the original form of (a text, for example).
    6. Computer Science To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.

    In nature sexuality is the duality that creates life. Thats why sex was meant to be pleasurable because it ensured that we had sex and continued to have sex in order for the species to survive. In nature and the same can be found in humans - because we are derived from nature - the female is monogamous because there is no advantage in nature for her to have more than one sexual partner. She needs the male to be there to look after the female and the offspring - a clever evolutionary trait - in order for the offspring to survive. This is why oxytocin is produced during sex because it is a bonding hormone to ensure monogamy works. Another reason why you should not do it - because you will get attached whether you want to or not!


    So why is casual sex a corruption?

    It ruins the female - forcing her into acting outside of her nature.
    It taints and contaminates the female - she is no longer sexually pure! If sex means so little to her that she will have sex with anyone then what will stop her from cheating in the future?
    It is a corruption of the natural order of things because it changes the female from monogamous to polygamous - she is thus acting outside of her nature!




    I can assure you that my reputation has more to do with the quality than with the quantity of my contributions.




    I shall recapitulate: an absence of 'love' no more renders sex "cold and clinical" than it does, ipso facto any other mode of human interaction.

    Love is an emotional state of being. In the past sex was called 'making love.' Now it's called a 'shag' or 'f*****. Do I need to say more? This has happened as casual sex has gone up! Love is part of the courting process that precedes sex and is also part of sex - with oxytocin being referred to as the 'love' hormone by some scientists.

    Most other human interactions are not about sex and therefore again it's a poor comparison.


    You've failed to clarify why this is 'immoral', assuming a relationship of mutual benefit which is not necessarily precluded by the '****-buddy' scenario outlined in the original post.


    See above now.



    I was referring to the quid pro quo (i.e. mutually-beneficial) nature of the transaction, which makes it prima facie ethical - and arguably, by extension, entirely moral.

    See definition of moral above.



    If you loved women then you wouldn't patronise, demean and belittle them with an egregious pseudo-morality predicated on outmoded stereotypes. At any rate, suffice it to say that yours is a straw-man hypothesis of no inherent relevance.

    My hypothesis is based upon the highest order of truth - that found in nature! See above. It is not subjective like your take on morality but entirely scientific.



    I defy you to refute these allegations, which are quite exhaustively substantiated both by your own insidious sophistry and by my subsequent rebuttals; that you are atavistic, bigoted and judgemental is wholly evident.

    Those words mean nothing. They are political attacks and smears designed to destroy reasoned debate and silence opposition.



    Nice comeback, Groucho.
    Right. Answers again in bold.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't think it is. But then I just see sex as sex; great, but I'm not one of these people who think of it as something for people in love, and attach all the sentiments onto it, so it wouldn't cheapen things for me. However, if you don't think emotionally you can handle it, then don't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I have always thought so, but then recently there has been this guy who is very attractive, i get on well with...neither of us want a relationship per se, because of our careers....and tbh Im just not wanting anything heavy right now.

    Ive always been quite straight laced and uptight about sexual things, mainly because of my upbringing. But now I feel that i want to break free from that, but it feels highly wrong in doing so?

    He suggested that maybe we should be "friends with benefits"....and I have to say, its very very tempting. But i dont know whether I would feel degraded or cheapened by it. Im having this battle between what I want or think I need and what i know is "right"....or what has been impressed upon me for an early age as to what is "right".

    Thoughts?

    Ultimately its my decision I know, but I would just like to hear your take on it.
    do what you think is the right thing to do.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    Ok we need a definition of morality to set the parameters of this argument or this could go on forever.

    Immorality: noun

    the state or quality of being immoral
    immoral behavior
    pl. immoralities -·ties an immoral act or practice; vice

    Ok the first two definitions don't really help us: but the third talks about an immoral act or practice being a 'vice.'

    vice: noun


    an evil or wicked action, habit, or characteristic
    evil or wicked conduct or behavior; depravity or corruption
    prostitution
    in old English morality plays, a character, often a buffoon, representing a vice or vice in general
    any trivial fault or failing, act of self-indulgence, etc.
    a defect or flaw, as in a work of art
    any physical or functional defect or imperfection of the body
    a bad or harmful trick or habit, as of a horse or dog

    So by this you are actually right about one thing: eating ice-cream is a vice because it is an act of self-indulgence!

    I should have noticed this earlier but thats what posting at 12.00pm after a long run does to you.
    How self-indulgent of you.

    However the OP asked is 'casual sex' highly immoral?

    First of all casual sex is self indulgence!
    Is it?

    self-in·dul·gence (sĕlf'ĭn-dŭl'jəns)

    n.

    Excessive indulgence of one's own appetites and desires.

    Meaning #1: an inability to resist the gratification of whims and desires
    Meaning #2: immoderate indulgence of bodily appetites
    ex·ces·sive (ĭk-sĕs'ĭv)

    adj.

    Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.
    im·mod·er·ate (ĭ-mŏd'ər-ĭt)

    adj.

    Exceeding normal or appropriate bounds; extreme: immoderate spending; immoderate laughter. See synonyms at excessive.
    I'm perfectly capable of refraining from the "gratification of whims and desires", and shall continue to practise casual sex notwithstanding: because doing so causes no necessary harm either to myself or to anybody else (indeed, quite the contrary), and is therefore every bit as 'reasonable', 'appropriate' and 'proper' as the playing of video-games, or vigorous exercise, or the consumption of ice-cream, all of which I equally and fervently court as part and parcel of the sumptuous banquet of human recreation - as, I suspect, do you.

    Conversely, if the aforementioned excuse is to be taken at face-value, your 'long run' has at the very least impaired your ability to correctly interpret my argument, possibly jeopardising this debate as a consequence. Perhaps 'long runs' are therefore immoral (viz. excessive; immoderate; self-indulgent)?

    Casual sex is also a 'corruption' of the natural order of things.
    So is vegetarianism. So is the microwave. So is adoption. So is public transportation. So is buying food at an emporium rather than foraging in rural isolation. So is charity, or any other of a number of philanthropic endeavours whose intention it is to shore-up social inequality. So are penicillin, ventolin, isotretinoin and synthetic insulin.

    Eating ice cream is thus not a very serious form of immorality as opposed to sexual immorality - hence the reason why I did not pick up on it quite so quickly - it is merely self indulgence.
    Not inherently, no; and even if it were, it'd be no more necessarily reprehensible - by dint of what 'self-indulgence' actually entails - than a herbal bath, or a bowl of ice-cream. Or casual sex. Or a long run.

    So why is casual sex also a corruption? First we need a definition of corruption:

    1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
    2. To ruin morally; pervert.
    3. To taint; contaminate.
    4. To cause to become rotten; spoil.
    5. To change the original form of (a text, for example).
    6. Computer Science To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.

    In nature sexuality is the duality that creates life. Thats why sex was meant to be pleasurable because it ensured that we had sex and continued to have sex in order for the species to survive.
    So you're saying that, in males, the assiduous pursuit of pleasure (i.e. self-indulgence) can be considered inherently moral (i.e. natural): and yet you'd simultaneously condemn these phallic paragons for treating women "horribly" and 'thinking nothing' of them, when this is simply a behavioural mechanism - albeit one no doubt refined to perfection by countless millennia of evolution - designed to facilitate rampant and unfettered promiscuity, thereby securing their genetic legacy? When such men, by this unfaltering adherence to the 'natural order', are arguably more 'moral' than those aberrations who practise monogamy?

    In nature and the same can be found in humans - because we are derived from nature - the female is monogamous because there is no advantage in nature for her to have more than one sexual partner. She needs the male to be there to look after the female and the offspring - a clever evolutionary trait - in order for the offspring to survive. This is why oxytocin is produced during sex because it is a bonding hormone to ensure monogamy works. Another reason why you should not do it - because you will get attached whether you want to or not!
    You may; you may not. However by treating this issue as one of dogmatic morality rather than one of higher reasoning, you marginalise the judgement of the individual in favour of promoting an unthinking subjugation to social norms through pernicious stigma (which your deliberately emotive rhetoric serves to reinforce).

    So why is casual sex a corruption?

    It ruins the female - forcing her into acting outside of her nature.
    As above.

    It taints and contaminates the female - she is no longer sexually pure! If sex means so little to her that she will have sex with anyone then what will stop her from cheating in the future?
    The fact that personal ethics are not determined solely by evolutionary traits? The fact that 'nature' is no more predicated upon evolution than vice-versa? The fact that 'nature' is self-evident and descriptive, rather than wholly prescriptive? The fact that meaningless sex with one person does not by default preclude meaningful sex with another? The fact that sex is not necessarily the sole function of relationships within civilised society?

    It is a corruption of the natural order of things because it changes the female from monogamous to polygamous - she is thus acting outside of her nature!
    Ad nauseam.

    Love is an emotional state of being. In the past sex was called 'making love.' Now it's called a 'shag' or 'f*****. Do I need to say more? This has happened as casual sex has gone up! Love is part of the courting process that precedes sex and is also part of sex - with oxytocin being referred to as the 'love' hormone by some scientists.

    Most other human interactions are not about sex and therefore again it's a poor comparison.
    It's an analogy. And providing you are not susceptible to forming emotional attachments through sex alone (which plenty of people, albeit disproportionately male, aren't), one that holds true.

    See above now.
    Refuted.

    See definition of moral above.
    Rebutted.

    My hypothesis is based upon the highest order of truth - that found in nature! See above. It is not subjective like your take on morality but entirely scientific.
    Your concept of 'morality' flows directly from the dual concepts of 'evolution' and 'nature', which is a patent imbecility for any number of reasons (not least those illustrated in my litany, above).

    Those words mean nothing. They are political attacks and smears designed to destroy reasoned debate and silence opposition.
    You mean like decrying casual sex as 'immoral' and attacking and smearing its practitioners as 'evil', 'impure' or 'corrupt', rather than explaining in rational, impartial, scientific terms why female promiscuity may be considered potentially unwise from a perspective of human biology? Heaven forbid.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    How self-indulgent of you.




    Is it?







    I'm perfectly capable of refraining from the "gratification of whims and desires", and shall continue to practise casual sex notwithstanding: because doing so causes no necessary harm either to myself or to anybody else
    indeed, quite the contrary)
    . What if she gets attached? What if you get attached? (Can result in emotional harm at the psychological level if the other person does not reciprocate.) What if she gets pregnant - can you really support a child? What if you get an STI? Also casual sex and ejaculation causes men to become weak. Have you ever heard of Napoleon Hill? He was an advisor to Roosevelt and Carnegie - the billionaire industrialist. In his book "think and grow rich" he talks about sexual transmutation - this is abstaining from sex in order to reach the level of achievment considered to be at the genius level - he got this from interviewing 500 over achievers in the early 20th century. Muhammed Ali in his prime used to abstain from sex just before a fight. Why does transmutation work - at an evolutionary point of view - if you are not getting sex (includes masterbation) then the body will ramp up the testosterone - which will result in the male taking more risks and becoming more aggressive - alpha behaviours designed to find a mate. I dare you to not have sex (including masterbation) for 2 whole weeks and then come back to me and tell me if your views have not changed. It is very hard to do but the results have to be felt to be believed. If this pure energy can be channeled in the right way... On the other hand regular casual sex weakens the male - you feel spaced out after you do it which can take a while to get over. You become less alpha and more beta as you take on provider behaviour in anticipation of the birth of babies. The aggression and risk taking decreases.

    Why did I say this? To illustrate the point that sex does have its consequences! Not just the ones taught in sex education class at school.
    ,
    and is therefore every bit as 'reasonable', 'appropriate' and 'proper' as the playing of video-games, or vigorous exercise, or the consumption of ice-cream, all of which I equally and fervently court as part and parcel of the sumptuous banquet of human recreation - as, I suspect, do you.

    To compare sex with ice cream and other human recreations devalues sex considerably. Sex is spiritual in nature - a joining of the mind and body - it is far more important than ice cream - does the eating of ice cream reuslt in the miracle that is the creation of life?

    Conversely, if the aforementioned excuse is to be taken at face-value, your 'long run' has at the very least impaired your ability to correctly interpret my argument, possibly jeopardising this debate as a consequence. Perhaps 'long runs' are therefore immoral (viz. excessive; immoderate; self-indulgent)?
    Long runs are sensible - it stops me from getting fat after eating all that ice cream!!! :rolleyes: Now my mind is sharp again.



    So is vegetarianism. So is the microwave. So is adoption. So is public transportation. So is buying food at an emporium rather than foraging in rural isolation. So is charity, or any other of a number of philanthropic endeavours whose intention it is to shore-up social inequality. So are penicillin, ventolin, isotretinoin and synthetic insulin.

    The purposes of these things are actually the same as the natural meaning of sex. Sex results in the survival of the species. These things have been constructed by man in order to help man survive. Charity is spiritual in nature - humans desire purpose in life - whether that is serving god or making the world a better place to live for future generations.



    Not inherently, no; and even if it were, it'd be no more necessarily reprehensible - by dint of what 'self-indulgence' actually entails - than a herbal bath, or a bowl of ice-cream. Or casual sex. Or a long run.
    See above. You are devaluing sex.



    So you're saying that, in males, the assiduous pursuit of pleasure (i.e. self-indulgence) can be considered inherently moral (i.e. natural): and yet you'd simultaneously condemn these phallic paragons for treating women "horribly" and 'thinking nothing' of them, when this is simply a behavioural mechanism - albeit one no doubt refined to perfection by countless millennia of evolution - designed to facilitate rampant and unfettered promiscuity, thereby securing their genetic legacy? When such men, by this unfaltering adherence to the 'natural order', are arguably more 'moral' than those aberrations who practise monogamy?
    Part of growing up is learning self control. When we need to go to the toilet we dont just do it in the middle of the street- no we control ourselves and go somewhere private. If women did not give themselves so freely as they do now -acting outside of their nature - and demanded commitment (such as marriage and love before sex) then they would not be treated horribly and discarded. Actually the sexual revolution and feminism have taken power from the women and given it to the alpha male (top 10%). Haha the irony. :rolleyes:




    You may; you may not. However by treating this issue as one of dogmatic morality rather than one of higher reasoning, you marginalise the judgement of the individual in favour of promoting an unthinking subjugation to social norms through pernicious stigma (which your deliberately emotive rhetoric serves to reinforce).
    Sometimes the individual is not actually capable of making a sound decision. The media is increasingly sexualised nowadays. Music used to be about love now its more about casual sex and quick flings. Sex education is nolonger about abstaining but about teaching young people to put a condom on a dildo (yes that actually happened :rolleyes: )Young people are most impressionable. Movies are constantly showing virgins in a bad light (40 year old virgin). Promiscuity is promoted. Why? The huge changes from 60s music to now makes me believe that humanity is deliberatly being subverted by those at the very top. There is also then intense peer pressure - mindless morons practising collectivism - if you are not doing it - your an outcast.




    As above.



    The fact that personal ethics are not determined solely by evolutionary traits? True. We can be subverted. Our nature distorted by outside forces. Proof is all around us! The fact that 'nature' is no more predicated upon evolution than vice-versa? The fact that 'nature' is self-evident and descriptive, rather than wholly prescriptive? You cannot deny nature. The fact that meaningless sex with one person does not by default preclude meaningful sex with another? If you cheapen sex then you cheapen it when you do it with someone you actually care about.The fact that sex is not necessarily the sole function of relationships within civilised society? No it isn't sex is also a joining of the minds as well as that of the bodies.



    Ad nauseam.



    It's an analogy. And providing you are not susceptible to forming emotional attachments through sex alone (which plenty of people, albeit disproportionately male, aren't), one that holds true.





    Refuted.



    Rebutted.



    Your concept of 'morality' flows directly from the dual concepts of 'evolution' and 'nature', which is a patent imbecility for any number of reasons (not least those illustrated in my litany, above).

    Really? See above.



    You mean like decrying casual sex as 'immoral' and attacking and smearing its practitioners as 'evil', 'impure' or 'corrupt', rather than explaining in rational, impartial, scientific terms why female promiscuity may be considered potentially unwise from a perspective of human biology? Heaven forbid.
    I did see the the natural order of things.
    Answers in bold again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in morality anymore really.

    What is moral?

    Moral is what we, as a society, define it to be. It doesn't mean it is an objective morality thought. Everything we call moral will always be subjective and hence flawed and not really 'moral'.

    Whatever, though, I think casual sex is fine as long as the parties are fine with it. I mean, if it's all about physical enjoyment, like any other thing you do that gives you pleasure, why should it be seen as 'bad'.

    Would you call it immoral for someone to play a piano up to 15 hours a day and enjoyed it thoroughly? Because i'm sure as hell 'God' didn't intend for us to create pianos and play them all day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not immoral, but its bound to cause problems
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What if she gets attached?
    You become less alpha and more beta as you take on provider behaviour in anticipation of the birth of babies. The aggression and risk taking decreases.
    To compare sex with ice cream and other human recreations devalues sex considerably. Sex is spiritual in nature - a joining of the mind and body - it is far more important than ice cream - does the eating of ice cream reuslt in the miracle that is the creation of life?
    The purposes of these things are actually the same as the natural meaning of sex.
    See above. You are devaluing sex.
    Part of growing up is learning self control.
    Actually the sexual revolution and feminism have taken power from the women and given it to the alpha male (top 10%). Haha the irony.
    Sometimes the individual is not actually capable of making a sound decision. The media is increasingly sexualised nowadays.
    There is also then intense peer pressure - mindless morons practising collectivism - if you are not doing it - your an outcast.
    True. We can be subverted. Our nature distorted by outside forces. Proof is all around us!
    You cannot deny nature.
    Part of growing up is learning self control.
    I did see the the natural order of things.
    Long runs are sensible - it stops me from getting fat after eating all that ice cream!!! Now my mind is sharp again.
    Well, I think we're done here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think something can be assessed as being moral or immoral depending on how you feel about it. Think about why you think it would be degrading or wrong. Then decide how you'd feel afterwards if you went and did it. This way you'll be able to judge whether it's the right thing for you or not. If it feels right then it is; trust your instincts rather than clinging on to a pre-conceived opinion - you're allowed to change your mind!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. An act between two consenting individuals cannot possibly be immoral.
    Offline

    0
    i wouldnt say it was. however in my experience **** buddies always ends badly with someone developing feelings for someone else, or one of the people starting a relationship with someone else making the other become jealous.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.