Moral Consequences of Sexual Promiscuity

[Bigdaddydvo]

This thread in OOT addresses a poster's disdain for emotionally detached, casual sex. The younger, shall we say "Maxim inspired" posters there can make a serious discussion of the topic problematic. I'll thus offer it up for the more erudite posters of SMP...what are the long term moral and emotional consequences, for an individual and society, of its members leading a Wilt Chamberlain-esque, sleep with anything lifestyle? (I'll leave out the physical part since it's basically axiomatic that STDs and unintentional pregnancy come with the territory).

[RJT]

Daddio,

Sorry for the quick interruption.

Phil and I are having not-too-far-off your topic discussion in the thread about Pascal’s wager. You might want to get updated on this, too. He brings up an issue that I have yet to hear of and am a bit skeptical about: Third world countries and the Church.

RJT

[Bigdaddydvo]

RJ,

I'm there...hopefully my Maker's Mark inspired reply was of some value.

BDD

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
RJ,

I'm there...hopefully my Maker's Mark inspired reply was of some value.

BDD

[/ QUOTE ]

The point you made is what I had in mind. You word things better than I. (Save me the trouble, too.) Glad you picked up the ball there. Thanks,

RJT

[Lestat]

I'm not sure about the moral or emotional consequences, but from a cold hard scientific standpoint, it is the evolutionary goal of every species to advance it's own genes. That means having sex as often as possible.

On the other hand, if sex is taken too casually as a society, it can create many societal problems such as increased poverty, unwanted pregnancies, as well as a decline in quality education, and so on.

My personal opinion on the morality of it... If two consenting adults who aren't hurting anyon want to have sex, what's the problem?

Hi Lestat,
[ QUOTE ]
but from a cold hard scientific standpoint, it is the evolutionary goal of every species to advance it's own genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert here, but I am trying to apply common sense. I believe that an elaboration of your thought would be that since human females give birth so infrequently, that other than having sex with as many as possible it is also in your (own) genes best interest to prevent other males from sticking their genes into females you're attemping to put your genes into. This could be an evolutionary reason for jealousy, and if there is jealousy, there will always be moral implications to wanton promiscuity.

Hello bigdaddydvo,

[ QUOTE ]
"Just sex" implies casual physical contact with no longstanding physical or emotional consequences. OP hit on the importance of the emotional concept which is essential to a relationship's sexual heath.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree again entirely with what you say in the first sentence of yours that I quote above. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As for the second sentence, unrelated to the first, it once again, display this unfortunate tendency, that theists have of not staying in their lane, as they say in the boy scouts or whatever. It also illuminates, why, to someone fond of freedom, it is imperative to display and counter all such statements. Not doing so would lead in the long term to an erosion of personal freedom and an impoverishment of the possibility of enjoying life.

To answer the OP of the thread you are quoting. There are more variety of psychopathogical consequences, or even causes, associated with sex probably than any other human behaviour. It is not abnormal to feel the way the OP feels but neither is it abnormal to feel differently and be able to have sex without emotional involvement. To examplify, masturbatory activities, again normal activities, culminating in an orgasm, very rarely have an emotional component regardless of how highly one may think of oneself.

In essence, lets just admit that there is a full gamut of experiences which may manifest differently, in each one of us, or even at different point in times for one. Far am I from saying that therapy is required if you do have an emotional reaction to the sexual act. OTOH, neither should you seek therapy if you can have sex without emotional reaction.

Bigdaddydvo, for some one I am fond of quoting because of your succinct way of putting forward admirable ideals of behaviour ("stay in your lane") that ought to be followed by all, thesits and non-theists, I have come to think that, in your case, some driving lessons may be called for. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I hope this is being put sufficiently mildly to be considered by yourself a gentle jibing only.

[Lestat]

Again, from a cold hard scientific viewpoint, I don't think the male of most species particularly cares. The goal is simply to spread his genes as many times possible through as many females possible.

Jealously comes into play because if he allows another man to impregnate a woman who has already beared his child (and caring for it), her focus is now taken away from HIS offspring at the expense of someone else's offspring.

Also remember, a woman will alway knows if the child she bear is hers, while a man can never be certain that it is his. This is another reason for male jealousy. He doesn't want to waste 9+ months of the female's best reproductive years waiting around for her to bear another man's child or nurse it for a couple of years afterward.

Some writers, I'm thinking of Robert Heinlen's "Stranger in a Strange Land", and others, such as Logans Run, have created fictional utopias where sex with everyone is the norm. No one gets jealous because everyone's doing it and child rearing is shared by society. There is also no sexual disease or population control ( Logans run dealt with this issue in a interesting manner) to worry about. When I was a kid, I thought such an environment would be Utopia, but I'm wondering if this could be so. Would humans always feel a sense of "ownership" for their mates and therefore never really go along with this sort of plan?

[benkahuna]

Societies like this one have occurred, though they were not long-lasting.

The second wave of kibbutzim in Israel which was socialist in nature had a bit of this character. Many kids were supposedly of uncertain paternity.