Promiscuity?

[Horatio Nelson]

Do condoms promote promiscuity? Not to shame anyone or their lifestyle. But if you are having sexual relations with somebody you hardly know, requiring you to use a condom for fear of STD's. Shouldn't that tell you shouldn't be having sex with that person?

Just my 2 cents. I would like to know your opinions.

[DeadEyes]

Isn't it what condoms are for? Isn't it why the Catholic church is against contraception? You should be having sex with whoever you please and whenever you please.

[phuckphace]

condoms don't encourage promiscuity, societal permissiveness does. remember that condoms aren't new - they've been around for over 300 years and possibly much longer. healthy societies used social ostracization (slut-shaming) to put a damper on deviant proclivities like promiscuity, so until recently the social cost of casually barebacking a stranger was too high. hell, even getting a divorce was a good way to get dirty looks from people.

if condoms ceased to exist tomorrow then we'd just end up with a lot more STI-related illnesses and deaths - whores of both genders screw strangers because their minds are broken and their ability to assess risk is almost nil. the desire to keep it in one's pants has to come from the inside.

[ImCoolBeans]

From what I gather condoms are generally thought of as birth control rather than STD prevention, at least that's how most people I know think of them. Like phuckphace said, society permits and promotes promiscuity -- I don't think there would be a significant change in how many younger people are sexually active if condoms didn't exist. Almost every show/advertisement/media outlet uses sex, in some way, to sell or convey something. It's engrained in almost everything we know -- that promotes promiscuity.

[Zachary G]

A new study has found that adolescents who use condoms the first time they have intercourse do not go on to have more sexual partners than others, and that they have lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases than those who do not use condoms the first time.

[phuckphace]

I'd also add that I think porn needs to take some blame for a lot of the sexually dysfunctional behavior that goes on these days. our brains are assaulted by graphic porn when they are still in early development - it pretty much goes without saying that a generation that grows up immersed in softcore and hardcore porn with both available instantly at the push of a button might maybe possibly end up with pickled brains predisposed to sexual acting-out.

tl;dr everything we were warned about by the prudes in the 60s came true in a very stark, Enoch Powell kind of way (hehe)

[Miserabilia]

I think that'd be balanced by the fact that most people heavily prefer condom-less sex over sex with a condom.

[DeadEyes]

The moral is, no matter what sexual life style you have, you better live it with protection. But I do believe if protection did not exist, certain persons would not take the risk of having sex with so many different people.

[Horatio Nelson]

condoms don't encourage promiscuity, societal permissiveness does. remember that condoms aren't new - they've been around for over 300 years and possibly much longer. healthy societies used social ostracization (slut-shaming) to put a damper on deviant proclivities like promiscuity, so until recently the social cost of casually barebacking a stranger was too high. hell, even getting a divorce was a good way to get dirty looks from people.

if condoms ceased to exist tomorrow then we'd just end up with a lot more STI-related illnesses and deaths - whores of both genders screw strangers because their minds are broken and their ability to assess risk is almost nil. the desire to keep it in one's pants has to come from the inside.

From what I gather condoms are generally thought of as birth control rather than STD prevention, at least that's how most people I know think of them. Like phuckphace said, society permits and promotes promiscuity -- I don't think there would be a significant change in how many younger people are sexually active if condoms didn't exist. Almost every show/advertisement/media outlet uses sex, in some way, to sell or convey something. It's engrained in almost everything we know -- that promotes promiscuity.

I definitely agree with what you guys are saying.

I just feel like condoms allow for sex to be something that is risk free and easy. But in my opinion it should a super personal experience you don't just do with anybody.

Alas, not everybody thinks this way.

[ImCoolBeans]

But in my opinion it should a super personal experience you don't just do with anybody.

I definitely agree with that, but think it's ok to have sex with people without being in a relationship with him/her, as long as you both aren't out sleeping around. Sex is more socially acceptable than it probably ever has been, but I think it's more so societies fault for being too 'easy'.

Interesting note, to me at least, I think the extreme aura of political correctness that we live in potentially contributes to the easiness of society. Slut shaming is so outrageously hated on that nobody can even think the word "slut" when somebody is out gang banging the entire Oakland Raiders football team, but then people are offended by how easy sex has become. Double edged sword.
(Also please don't crucify me, I'm not condoning slut shaming)

[DeadEyes]

I think it's ok to have sex with people without being in a relationship with him/her, as long as you both aren't out sleeping around.

But if you're not in a relationship with the person, you're basically sleeping around? Besides even if you are in a relationship, it could be an open one and both partners could agree to sleep with different people as long as they're careful (using condoms).

[ImCoolBeans]

But if you're not in a relationship with the person, you're basically sleeping around? Besides even if you are in a relationship, it could be an open one and both partners could agree to sleep with different people.

Not necessarily... Just because you're having sex with one person regularly, but are not a couple, does not mean that you are sleeping around. That is also different from an open relationship, you can be monogamous in your sexual relationship without having a romantic one accompanying it. I don't think that necessarily makes you promiscuous either, since being promiscuous would entail a more indiscriminate approach.

[DeadEyes]

Not necessarily... Just because you're having sex with one person regularly, but are not a couple, does not mean that you are sleeping around. That is also different from an open relationship, you can be monogamous in your sexual relationship without having a romantic one accompanying it. I don't think that necessarily makes you promiscuous either, since being promiscuous would entail a more indiscriminate approach.

I suppose so but then again, why always have sex with the same person, that's just so boring haha. One person may be too scared to go sleeping around without using protection, that's my point.

[Arkansasguy]

Do condoms promote promiscuity? Not to shame anyone or their lifestyle. But if you are having sexual relations with somebody you hardly know, requiring you to use a condom for fear of STD's. Shouldn't that tell you shouldn't be having sex with that person?

Just my 2 cents. I would like to know your opinions.

Yes, by giving people a sense of freedom from natural consequences, they promote promiscuity.

[Babs]

Not necessarily.
If people want to have sex, they'll have sex. Condoms just create a safer environment.

[Arkansasguy]

Not necessarily.
If people want to have sex, they'll have sex. Condoms just create a safer environment.

But if you look at the broad scale, they promote societal promiscuity. Pope Paul VI actually predicted that the acceptance of contraception would lead to abortion, divorce, objectification of women, etc. And really it followed from contraception. Because once society rejected traditional sexual morality on contraception, traditional sexual morality on fornication, amongst other things, was quickly swept aside.

[Babs]

But if you look at the broad scale, they promote societal promiscuity. Pope Paul VI actually predicted that the acceptance of contraception would lead to abortion, divorce, objectification of women, etc. And really it followed from contraception. Because once society rejected traditional sexual morality on contraception, traditional sexual morality on fornication, amongst other things, was quickly swept aside.

There have been condoms found in ancient Egypt. They were made from cloth. Condoms have been around for a very long time. What's changing is we're becoming a more sex-positive society. Besides, if you don't wanna have a lot of sex, cool but if other people do then it's their life. It's better that we create a safe environment for the people who want to have sex. Taking away those things won't stop people from having sex; it may stop SOME people, but people will still be having lots of sex. It will just result in more unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

[Arkansasguy]

There have been condoms found in ancient Egypt. They were made from cloth. Condoms have been around for a very long time. What's changing is we're becoming a more sex-positive society. Besides, if you don't wanna have a lot of sex, cool but if other people do then it's their life. It's better that we create a safe environment for the people who want to have sex. Taking away those things won't stop people from having sex; it may stop SOME people, but people will still be having lots of sex. It will just result in more unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Of course contraception has existed since ancient times, but the point is, it used to be that the culture discouraged sexual immorality. Once contraception became accepted, other forms of sexual immorality became accepted. We need a culture which rejects sexual immorality.

[CosmicNoodle]

No, they really don't, I know people who will have sex with any randomer with or without a condom, and I know people who won't have sex with anyone even with one.

It's all based on the person how promiscuous they are. But in my opinion, a little sexual promiscuity and deviancy makes things fun.

[Babs]

Of course contraception has existed since ancient times, but the point is, it used to be that the culture discouraged sexual immorality. Once contraception became accepted, other forms of sexual immorality became accepted. We need a culture which rejects sexual immorality.

Or consider this: people can make their own decisions for their sex lives and how much sex they have based upon their own preferences. Sex isn't inherently evil or gross.

[Arkansasguy]

No, they really don't, I know people who will have sex with any randomer with or without a condom, and I know people who won't have sex with anyone even with one.

It's all based on the person how promiscuous they are. But in my opinion, a little sexual promiscuity and deviancy makes things fun.

You seem to be missing the fact that there are collective social attitudes as well. Social acceptance of contraception, led to social acceptance of fornication.

Or consider this: people can make their own decisions for their sex lives and how much sex they have based upon their own preferences. Sex isn't inherently evil or gross.

Fornication and contraception are inherently wrong. Why should people be allowed to have sex outside marriage?

[CosmicNoodle]

You seem to be missing the fact that there are collective social attitudes as well. Social acceptance of contraception, led to social acceptance of fornication.

THAT'S THE HEART OF MY ARGUMENT, my very point was that each and every person is different., so are society's and different parts of society's.

Fornication and contraception are inherently wrong. Why should people be allowed to have sex outside marriage?

I'll entertain that idea, why is it wrong? One thing, explain your reasoning, without using the bible or god.

Why shouldn't people? Why should YOUR views affect what people are allowed to do in there own homes? You have the view of "freedom is given" no, freedom is something thats taken away and taken away only.

[Arkansasguy]

I'll entertain that idea, why is it wrong? One thing, explain your reasoning, without using the bible or god.

Why shouldn't people? Why should YOUR views affect what people are allowed to do in there own homes? You have the view of "freedom is given" no, freedom is something thats taken away and taken away only.

Contraception is immoral because it contradicts the natural end of the human sexual act (procreation).

The virtue of prudence demands that things which are important must be done well. Now it is clear that human fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children. Thus, it is irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union (marriage).

[CosmicNoodle]

Contraception is immoral because it contradicts the natural end of the human sexual act (procreation).

Unnatural is wrong, he types from his computer, whilst sitting in his warm house. Does it not strike you, that, maybe, just maybe, 7 billion humans is enough? Why do we need more?

Also, your working under the idea of "Why should we let them?" When in reality it should be "Why shouldn't we let them"

The virtue of prudence demands that things which are important must be done well. Now it is clear that human fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children. Thus, it is irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union (marriage).

That's just a logical fallacy. And the start of it doesn't even make any sense, why SHOULD the biological farther be bound to the mother and child, I fail to see why, Please explain to me.
What if the farther is a belligerent, abusive, cruel ass hole who beats the children and his wife? Should he be forced to stay then?

You says it's "irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union", I ask, why? Irrational implys it is meaningless and benefits nobody? It's a healthy, normal biological act, that has been proven beneficial to health. That one fact alone destroys your hole argument.

[Convoluted one]

sexuality is the most natural part of who we are. it is only "evil" when you are in it only for yourself and to use others and that goes for straight, bi gay or whatever else is out there

[Arkansasguy]

That's just a logical fallacy. And the start of it doesn't even make any sense, why SHOULD the biological farther be bound to the mother and child, I fail to see why, Please explain to me.
What if the farther is a belligerent, abusive, cruel ass hole who beats the children and his wife? Should he be forced to stay then?

You says it's "irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union", I ask, why? Irrational implys it is meaningless and benefits nobody? It's a healthy, normal biological act, that has been proven beneficial to health. That one fact alone destroys your hole argument.

I fail to see what my computer or house has to do with anything. Please note that being ignorant of philosophy doesn't make you right, it just makes you ignorant.

Why should it be "why shouldn't we let them?"?

Which fallacy is it? The father should be bound it the mother and child because it is clear from human nature that a man should provide for his offspring. This is clear in a similar way to how it is clear that humans naturally live in society.

If the father is abusive, he should stop, addressing it from the perspective of his moral agency. And no, his being evil should not give him a right to separate. That is a separate question from whether the wife and children have a right to separate in self-defense, they do, on account of his disordered actions. And in any case, trying to establish rules based on exceptions is illogical.

Irrational means it is contrary to reason. As shown, it is a deficient way of procreating to do so in a situation where the father will not be bound to the mother.

[Arkansasguy]

Ok, you are...perhaps illiterate, or English isn't your first language because you are typing like your off your face on some form of Amphetamine.
Your arguments are paper thin, your views are backward, but I've had enough, I can feel myself getting angry at the stupidity here, and I'm going to leave before theres an outburst.

Goodday to you sir...

So you can't actually refute anything I've said, so you're giving up?

[Babs]

You seem to be missing the fact that there are collective social attitudes as well. Social acceptance of contraception, led to social acceptance of fornication.



Fornication and contraception are inherently wrong. Why should people be allowed to have sex outside marriage?

Because it's their own bodies and your religious convictions have no place dictating other people's lives.

[Arkansasguy]

Because it's their own bodies and your religious convictions have no place dictating other people's lives.

I haven't cited my religious convictions.

[Babs]

I haven't cited my religious convictions.

You've said shit about the pope, and what you're saying is a common Catholic/Christian belief. I also don't know where else you could be getting this belief from.

[Arkansasguy]

You've said shit about the pope, and what you're saying is a common Catholic/Christian belief. I also don't know where else you could be getting this belief from.

Ad hominem. You're correct, but how I came to my beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not they are true.

And the reference to the Pope was citing him as a (prophetic) social commentator.

[Babs]

Ad hominem. You're correct, but how I came to my beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not they are true.

And the reference to the Pope was citing him as a (prophetic) social commentator.

Well, either way, your moral convictions have no place in other people's lives. If it's not hurting anyone -- which practicing safe, consensual sex is not -- then there's no reason to try to get people to stop doing it simply because you disagree.

[Arkansasguy]

Well, either way, your moral convictions have no place in other people's lives. If it's not hurting anyone -- which practicing safe, consensual sex is not -- then there's no reason to try to get people to stop doing it simply because you disagree.

Why? From what does this no-harm principle, as the only principle of morality, proceed?

[TroyH]

Contraception is immoral because it contradicts the natural end of the human sexual act (procreation).

The virtue of prudence demands that things which are important must be done well. Now it is clear that human fathers by nature should be bound to the mother of their children. Thus, it is irrational and thus wrong for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union (marriage).

You say that human fathers should by nature be bound to the mother of their children. You even say that this is clear. I don't see how this can possibly be clear in any way. You are just stating that it is clear and necessary based on this virtue of prudence which is not an accepted fact. Therefore your argument stands on nothing. Therefore it is not irrational for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union.

The father should be bound it the mother and child because it is clear from human nature that a man should provide for his offspring. This is clear in a similar way to how it is clear that humans naturally live in society.

It is blatantly not cleat from human nature that a man should provide for his offspring since there are millions of mothers raising children without the help of a man. This statement is quite patronizing to woman actually as it assumes that nature dictates that a woman needs a man to provide for her in order to raise a child. I'm sure if you ask around town a bit you could find a single mother who is adequately caring for her child or children without being provided for by a man. This common example shows again that your claims that it is "natural" for a man to provide for his offspring and therefore irrational to have sex without reproduction is false.

Why? From what does this no-harm principle, as the only principle of morality, proceed?

Common sense. 2 young lovers are having sex on the other side of the planet right now. They aren't married but are having a grand old time. They are not harming each other, their family, you or I. How could this action be implicitly wrong?

[Arkansasguy]

You say that human fathers should by nature be bound to the mother of their children. You even say that this is clear. I don't see how this can possibly be clear in any way. You are just stating that it is clear and necessary based on this virtue of prudence which is not an accepted fact. Therefore your argument stands on nothing. Therefore it is not irrational for a man and woman to engage in sex without being bound together in a permanent union.

How should human fatherhood work, in your opinion?

It is blatantly not cleat from human nature that a man should provide for his offspring since there are millions of mothers raising children without the help of a man. This statement is quite patronizing to woman actually as it assumes that nature dictates that a woman needs a man to provide for her in order to raise a child. I'm sure if you ask around town a bit you could find a single mother who is adequately caring for her child or children without being provided for by a man. This common example shows again that your claims that it is "natural" for a man to provide for his offspring and therefore irrational to have sex without reproduction is false.

Even in our own society, as permissive and accepting of fornication as it is, there exists a legal system to force people who've become fathers as a result of fornication to provide for their children. Why is this?

Common sense. 2 young lovers are having sex on the other side of the planet right now. They aren't married but are having a grand old time. They are not harming each other, their family, you or I. How could this action be implicitly wrong?

If it's such common sense, then why has it only been discovered in the last few hundred years?

[Vlerchan]

How should human fatherhood work, in your opinion?
How we believe it 'should' work and how it 'might' or 'does' work are not necessarily the same thing.

Even in our own society, as permissive and accepting of fornication as it is, there exists a legal system to force people who've become fathers as a result of fornication to provide for their children. Why is this?
Because we live in societies that hold that fathers must provide for their chidlren's upbringings.

What is your point?

[TroyH]

How we believe it 'should' work and how it 'might' or 'does' work are not necessarily the same thing.


Because we live in societies that hold that fathers must provide for their chidlren's upbringings.

What is your point?

This^

If it's such common sense, then why has it only been discovered in the last few hundred years?

Why has what only been discovered in the past few years? Principles of morality?

[Arkansasguy]

Because we live in societies that hold that fathers must provide for their chidlren's upbringings.

What is your point?

Exactly.

Why has what only been discovered in the past few years? Principles of morality?

The idea that the basis of morality is the no-harm principle.

[Arkansasguy]

Double post.

[Vlerchan]

Exactly.

Societies believing this and enshrining it in law does not make it a universal truth or moral fact.

[TroyH]

The idea that the basis of morality is the no-harm principle.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. This is certainly not a new idea.

[Arkansasguy]

Societies believing this and enshrining it in law does not make it a universal truth or moral fact.

The fact that it's been pretty much universal among human societies would indicate that it is a quality of human nature.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. This is certainly not a new idea.

Who proposed it before the last few hundred years?

[TroyH]

Who proposed it before the last few hundred years?

As I said before this is an idea that comes from common sense, it did not come from 1 person. It is a collective idea of human kind.

[Vlerchan]

The fact that it's been pretty much universal among human societies would indicate that it is a quality of human nature.
The fact that it pretty much is would be indicative that it's not.

[Arkansasguy]

As I said before this is an idea that comes from common sense, it did not come from 1 person. It is a collective idea of human kind.

The. Surely someone before a few hundred years can be identified it who said it.

(Cricket noises)

The fact that it pretty much is would be indicative that it's not.

Is having the ability to walk an aspect of human nature? It's pretty much universal among humans.

[Vlerchan]

Is having the ability to walk an aspect of human nature? It's pretty much universal among humans.
I'm not even sure human nature exists.

If it's not something inherent to all humans then it's not part of human nature.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not even sure human nature exists.

If it's not something inherent to all humans then it's not part of human nature.

Is it part of human nature to be able to walk?

[Vlerchan]

Is it part of human nature to be able to walk?
I'm not even sure human nature exists.

If it's not something inherent to all humans then it's not part of human nature.

So no.

[Babs]

Why? From what does this no-harm principle, as the only principle of morality, proceed?

It proceeds from the fact that it doesn't have the chance to negatively affect anybody who isn't involved.
And I've never stated that it's the only principle of morality. It's just the only one relevant when it comes to people making decisions for their own body.
Why are you so adamant about dictating the sexual choices of consenting adults?

[TroyH]

The. Surely someone before a few hundred years can be identified it who said it.

(Cricket noises)

I just said it is a collective human idea. No one person could be identified as the originator of such an idea. It's like asking which person was the first to figure out how to chew food. I would just list some generic names, but I'm not sure what the early naming habits of Homo sapiens sapiens were 10,000+ years ago when this idea was surely common sense among them.

[Arkansasguy]

I'm not even sure human nature exists.

If it's not something inherent to all humans then it's not part of human nature.

So no.

And now we have reached the absurdum.

It proceeds from the fact that it doesn't have the chance to negatively affect anybody who isn't involved.
And I've never stated that it's the only principle of morality. It's just the only one relevant when it comes to people making decisions for their own body.
Why are you so adamant about dictating the sexual choices of consenting adults?

That's not a basis, you just repeated yourself. Why must physical harm result in order for an action regarding a person's body (or another person's body with their consent) to be wrong?

Why are you so adamant about defending them?

I just said it is a collective human idea. No one person could be identified as the originator of such an idea. It's like asking which person was the first to figure out how to chew food. I would just list some generic names, but I'm not sure what the early naming habits of Homo sapiens sapiens were 10,000+ years ago when this idea was surely common sense among them.

It doesn't have to be the originator, just someone who expressed the idea.

(More cricket noises)

[Vlerchan]

And now we have reached the absurdum.
I feel the need to point out that this is just your opinion. That's the problem with Reductio As Absurdum's. There's no set "Absurdum".

[SethfromMI]

people were having sex long before condoms were invented. I can see where someone would say they promote promiscuity, but honestly, I think of them as realizing if you are going to have sex regardless, let's be safer about it

[Arkansasguy]

people were having sex long before condoms were invented. I can see where someone would say they promote promiscuity, but honestly, I think of them as realizing if you are going to have sex regardless, let's be safer about it

This ignores the fact that social attitudes affect the number of people who will fornicate.

[SethfromMI]

This ignores the fact that social attitudes affect the number of people who will fornicate.

oh goodness sake, ever read about the Romans? orgies were a common occurrence and they did not have condoms.

[Babs]

Why are you so adamant about defending them?



Because I understand it's not my place to control other people's bodies.

[Arkansasguy]

oh goodness sake, ever read about the Romans? orgies were a common occurrence and they did not have condoms.

Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that acceptance of contraception in our society resulted in the acceptance of fornication.

[SethfromMI]

Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that acceptance of contraception in our society resulted in the acceptance of fornication.

you don't seem to understand there has always been an acceptance of fornication. condoms just made it safer

[Arkansasguy]

you don't seem to understand there has always been an acceptance of fornication. condoms just made it safer

It used to be that fornication was discouraged.

[SethfromMI]

It used to be that fornication was discouraged.

oh please. sure, parts of society has always discouraged it, but it has also always been a very real part of most, if not all societies.

[Arkansasguy]

oh please. sure, parts of society has always discouraged it, but it has also always been a very real part of most, if not all societies.

Of course it has. A well-ordered society is one in which vice is considered vice, even though most vices can't be eradicated.

[SethfromMI]

Of course it has. A well-ordered society is one in which vice is considered vice, even though most vices can't be eradicated.

so if promiscuity was there before condoms, than condoms are not to blame are they

[Arkansasguy]

so if promiscuity was there before condoms, than condoms are not to blame are they

Not for the existence of promiscuity, but for it's being approved by society.

[SethfromMI]

Not for the existence of promiscuity, but for it's being approved by society.

oh gosh....this convo is not getting anywhere with you. the Romans accepted, even approved of it without condoms. many societies had and they did not have condoms

[TroyH]

It doesn't have to be the originator, just someone who expressed the idea.

(More cricket noises)

No indeed. You seem to be completely missing my point. People have expressed this idea through all of human history.

[Arkansasguy]

oh gosh....this convo is not getting anywhere with you. the Romans accepted, even approved of it without condoms. many societies had and they did not have condoms

I'm not talking abstractly. I'm talking about changes in our specific society.

No indeed. You seem to be completely missing my point. People have expressed this idea through all of human history.

This intellectual dishonesty is getting annoying. If someone expressed this idea, you would be able to cite an example of it. You can't because no one did, so please stop these unsupported claims.

[SethfromMI]

No indeed. You seem to be completely missing my point. People have expressed this idea through all of human history.

this is exactly the point I am trying to make. societies have always been sexually promiscuous.

[TroyH]

This intellectual dishonesty is getting annoying. If someone expressed this idea, you would be able to cite an example of it. You can't because no one did, so please stop these unsupported claims.

You don't have to cite information which is common knowledge.

Besides, you claimed this idea is only a few hundred years old. Tell me what you are using to support that claim?

[Arkansasguy]

You don't have to cite information which is common knowledge.

So you're deliberately lying. Got it.

[Vlerchan]

The ethic of reciprocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) is essentially the No Harm Principal since no (rational-minded) person would want undue/arbitrary harm to come to them.

Mills was just the first to articulate it as the No Harm Principal.

[Arkansasguy]

The ethic of reciprocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) is essentially the No Harm Principal since no (rational-minded) person would want undue/arbitrary harm to come to them.

Mills was just the first to articulate it as the No Harm Principal.

Yet it was never considered as the basis or only principle of morality until recently.

[David_L2]

promiscuity existed before contraception...with or without contraception, people are always going to want sex whether they are in a relationship or not

[amgb]

I think that though condoms are a good thing for preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD's, it could definitely give people the idea of 'it doesn't matter because I've got a condom'. This thinking in my opinion is wrong and flawed because promiscuity is an act of betrayal and it does matter; it leads people to thinking they don't have to worry one bit and they'll think they're fine - until something bad really does happen or they get caught. And on top of that I just can't see the good side of promiscuity

[phuckphace]

Yet it was never considered as the basis or only principle of morality until recently.

and it's worked out so well, hasn't it? (extreme sarcasm)

the No Harm Principle only "works" if: a) all of the actors are rational and b) if all possible consequences of each action were knowable in advance. the NHP has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried because humans are neither rational nor capable of prescience.

any social arrangement that bases itself on the premise that people will or ought to act rationally is doomed to fail. religion, on the other hand, puts a check on our tendency to overestimate ourselves.

[Arkansasguy]

and it's worked out so well, hasn't it? (extreme sarcasm)

the No Harm Principle only "works" if: a) all of the actors are rational and b) if all possible consequences of each action were knowable in advance. the NHP has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried because humans are neither rational nor capable of prescience.

any social arrangement that bases itself on the premise that people will or ought to act rationally is doomed to fail. religion, on the other hand, puts a check on our tendency to overestimate ourselves.

As I said on another thread, it "works" if by "works" you mean "causes social ruin", which seems to be what liberals mean by "works".

[Sugaree]

Do condoms promote promiscuity? Not to shame anyone or their lifestyle. But if you are having sexual relations with somebody you hardly know, requiring you to use a condom for fear of STD's. Shouldn't that tell you shouldn't be having sex with that person?

Just my 2 cents. I would like to know your opinions.

Promiscuity is a degenerative act. I don't think anybody with any common sense would be supportive of it. A post earlier put it much more simply: it is not the tool (haha, tool) that promotes promiscuity, but social permissiveness. I'm not saying we need to publicly shame and degrade people who go around humping everything that breathes. However, if we keep silent about it, we're only serving to encourage the behavior.

This is why, in my opinion, prostitution is illegal: it encourages promiscuous, and often times risky, behavior. We could easily make prostitution legal, but would that really be solving the problem? Perhaps. Everyone knows that when something is banned or prohibited that people only want to have it more. So, subconsciously, many people find a thrill in doing something "bad" or "naughty" because of the fact that it is considered such.

Condoms are a multifaceted tool (haha I said it again!) that help prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancy and stop the spread of STIs/STDs. All we can do is encourage men to buy them, for women to not have sex without a rubber, and to educate everyone as to the importance of protecting themselves, lest they want to have a nasty rash of some sort.

[phuckphace]

prostitution is a whole other can of worms. it's one thing to sleep around in your social circle, it's completely another to exploit meaningless (and dangerous) sex for profit.

I would think everyone regardless of political affiliation would automatically oppose prostitution as harmful to women, but it seems the camp is divided on the subject. there is a SJW school of thought that tries to portray prostitutes as EMPOWERED WOMYN exercising their rights to bodily autonomy *gets stabbed to death by a client* but sane folks know that prostitution is neither glamourous nor empowering, just simply shameless exploitation of vulnerable victims.

anyone who believes otherwise ought to be forced to work the corner for a night.

[Vlerchan]

any social arrangement that bases itself on the premise that people will or ought to act rationally is doomed to fail.
It is based on the premise that individuals know their own subjective preferences best.

Do you disagree with this premise?

the NHP has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried because humans are neither rational nor capable of prescience.
Like?

I would think everyone regardless of political affiliation would automatically oppose prostitution as harmful to women, but it seems the camp is divided on the subject. there is a SJW school of thought that tries to portray prostitutes as EMPOWERED WOMYN exercising their rights to bodily autonomy *gets stabbed to death by a client* but sane folks know that prostitution is neither glamourous nor empowering, just simply shameless exploitation of vulnerable victims.
I tend to argue that woman are going to be much safer engaging in prostitution within a regulated framework.

Because desperate woman are going to engage in prostitution regardless.

---

Promiscuity is a degenerative act.
Perhaps I don't have common sense.

What makes promiscuity so inherently degenerative?

[DoodleSnap]

The desire for casual "one-night-stand" sex will always be there, whether condoms exist or not. The fact that condoms simply offer better protection seeking this sort of thing, is a pro for everyone involved, IMO.

[Sugaree]

Perhaps I don't have common sense.

What makes promiscuity so inherently degenerative?

It indicates that you are a person raised without any sense of control. Being promiscuous, if nothing more, contributes to the "I, me, mine" attitude often seen in younger people. That "fuck it, I'm young" mentality leads to a lot of heartbreak, and the more society stays silent on the issue, the more it encourages promiscuous behavior as the norm.

[Vlerchan]

It indicates that you are a person raised without any sense of control.
We are not talking about rapists here. These people are quite in control.

If we're talking about control in the limited sense you mean it though you're going to need to quantify why this is something you need to control.

Being promiscuous, if nothing more, contributes to the "I, me, mine" attitude often seen in younger people.
How?

That "fuck it, I'm young" mentality leads to a lot of heartbreak, and the more society stays silent on the issue, the more it encourages promiscuous behavior as the norm.
I think Hedonism has generally negative long-term outcomes. I don't think this applies to all behaviours that could be called Hedonistic though. As long as someone is being safe I don't see the problem in them sleeping around - as long as a permanent preference for detached sex isn't developed.

[Sugaree]

We are not talking about rapists here. These people are quite in control.

If we're talking about control in the limited sense you mean it though you're going to need to quantify why this is something you need to control.


Promiscuity implies that you have no control over your desire to have sexual relations with someone. Rapists are a completely different category from promiscuous individuals, mostly because rapists do it to harm others. Rapists could easily control their urges to rape if they so choose, just like promiscuous men and women, but choose not to.

How?

Those who go out to seek pleasure and not learn to control the desire are self-centered individuals. Being self-centered helps no one, including you. The attitude I am referring to seems very prevalent, in my experience at least, to college aged men and women who are basically told by their instructors that they need to think about themselves, that THEY are the most important thing to ever walk the green Earth. To deny oneself of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, is seen almost as an act of self-denial and hatred of self.

Does that mean that sleeping around with people every now and then is inherently bad? No. But the attitude that creates such ambitions is inherently bad.


I think Hedonism has generally negative long-term outcomes. I don't think this applies to all behaviours that could be called Hedonistic though. As long as someone is being safe I don't see the problem in them sleeping around - as long as a permanent preference for detached sex isn't developed.

I can agree on this, but that doesn't make it a less desirable trait in the long run. If I am to go into a committed relationship, I don't want to be with someone who I know had habits of sleeping with other men or women. It wouldn't be because I don't trust them not to act on those urges, but because I can't guarantee it won't happen again if I were to commit myself to them.

I'm looking at the issue from a morality standpoint. It's why I don't think open relationships work out as intended and lead to heartbreak. There's too much wiggle room, as it were, for lines and boundaries to be blurred. When you finally do find someone to commit yourself to, that person's emotions matter as well as yours. I have too many friends who have had their hearts broken by guys who wanted an open relationship, they agreed with it, and find that they can't deal with the fact that their supposed boyfriend doesn't want to have anything to do with them 90% of the time.

[phuckphace]

*

excellent post, I completely agree

[Vlerchan]

Promiscuity implies that you have no control over your desire to have sexual relations with someone. Rapists are a completely different category from promiscuous individuals, mostly because rapists do it to harm others. Rapists could easily control their urges to rape if they so choose, just like promiscuous men and women, but choose not to.
I think if promiscuous men and woman were truly the slave to their desires as is being made out then these promiscuous men and woman would advance to being rapists. I'll drop this point though on the grounds it's sort of irrelevant and I realise rapists are an awful comparison - because rapists don't tend to rape for purely sexual gratification.

I also presume the response to why we need to control these sexual desires is contained in the below text.

Those who go out to seek pleasure and not learn to control the desire are self-centered individuals.
I don't think this follows.

Just because I want to maximise the pleasure I experience does not necessarily mean that I'm a self-centred individual. If I was impacting deliberately and negatively on other people in the process then I might concede I am being self-centred but I don't think occurs within your typical sexual encounter.

However I'll pretend that I think it does follow in the next paragraph and answer how I would if such were the case.

Being self-centered helps no one, including you. The attitude I am referring to seems very prevalent, in my experience at least, to college aged men and women who are basically told by their instructors that they need to think about themselves, that THEY are the most important thing to ever walk the green Earth.
If an individual decides to be self-centred that means that she must act to the best of her abilities to maximise her pleasure without aid from outside sources - because few outside sources are keen to help a self-centred individual. Within an environment were all/most individuals are competing to maximise their own pleasure - and I'm working off what you said: this environment is my local college campus - in order to maximise pleasure that person must become the best that person can be because otherwise pleasure maximisation won't occur. In becoming the best that person can be - and self-centredly striving to be on top (no pun intended) - that person ultimately contributes to the social good through impacting people with lots of pleasurable encounters.

tl;dr: through selfishly pursuing individual pleasure we inadvertently contribute to the social pleasure (Smith 1776).

I can agree on this, but that doesn't make it a less desirable trait in the long run.
Unless we can determine that people who were previously promiscuous (see: most college students) were unable to find a long-term partner I don't think this argument holds quite well.

I'm looking at the issue from a morality standpoint.
If two people meet and have (safe) sex it infers (since perfect information exists - both know their own preferences) that both have maximised pleasure and that pareto optimality has been achieved.

I think this is a pretty moral outcome.

It's why I don't think open relationships work out as intended and lead to heartbreak. There's too much wiggle room, as it were, for lines and boundaries to be blurred. When you finally do find someone to commit yourself to, that person's emotions matter as well as yours. I have too many friends who have had their hearts broken by guys who wanted an open relationship, they agreed with it, and find that they can't deal with the fact that their supposed boyfriend doesn't want to have anything to do with them 90% of the time.
I agree that not being sexually committed to a person you want to start a committed relationship with is going to lead to disastrous in the long-term and it's a scenario where being promiscuous will be a negative burden.

I'm defending more promiscuity as engaging in casual sex with multiple partners over a given period of ones life, with no view for commitment.

---

Does that mean that sleeping around with people every now and then is inherently bad? No.
Just so we're clear: I'm no fan of individualism, so at this stage I'm defending this argument for the sake of having something interesting going on in ROTW.

edit: That's to say I'm pretty sure we basically agree.

[Saint of Sinners]

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But to me it isn't a big deal cause personally I feel that people should be able to fuck whoever they like (with consent of course).