'Is casual sex immoral?'

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting essay  - bit deeper than the title suggests

https://unherd.com/2020/11/is-casual-sex-immoral/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

[Roses]

I think it is very unwise due to the health problems, including unwanted pregnancies, which could be caused by sleeping around.

[Sriram]

Anything that shows a lack of self control and mental discipline is immoral. It could be lust, anger, greed...anything.

Morality is basically about self discipline.

[Gordon]

Interesting essay  - bit deeper than the title suggests

https://unherd.com/2020/11/is-casual-sex-immoral/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

Thought provoking essay, especially regarding the idea that 'consent' in isolation has its limitations.

[Aruntraveller]

Anything that shows a lack of self control and mental discipline is immoral. It could be lust, anger, greed...anything.

Morality is basically about self discipline.

That's the whole of current government done for, then.

[Outrider]

Thought provoking essay, especially regarding the idea that 'consent' in isolation has its limitations.

I think the point needs to be addressed that consent is the instant, but the longer term deception (sometimes self-deception) that comes from not properly addressing differing expectations of a relationship is where the morality/immorality distinction lies here.  If someone says yes they've consented - that's the legal bit out of the way - but if they said yes on the understanding that it's a step on the way to a longer-term relationship that isn't an expectation of their partner, then there's a deception there.  Whether they are being deceived by themselves or their partner will differ from case to case, and the burden of responsibility to ensure that everyone is not just adequately consenting but properly informed (for want of a better term) is where this situation needs to be developed.

I think it is very unwise due to the health problems, including unwanted pregnancies, which could be caused by sleeping around.

Those risks are real, but they can be adequately managed - is potential health risk a moral issue, though? Is it not, rather, a healthcare issue?

Anything that shows a lack of self control and mental discipline is immoral. It could be lust, anger, greed...anything.

Morality is basically about self discipline.

That's quite a jump - what's immoral about letting your hair down and enjoying yourself?  What's immoral about finding people attractive and acting on a mutual desire?  Why does having sex with someone suggest to you 'a lack of self control'?  If you're pleasing your partner then, presumably, you're paying enough attention whilst being distracted to demonstrate at least a degree of mental discipline?

O.

[Gordon]

I think the point needs to be addressed that consent is the instant, but the longer term deception (sometimes self-deception) that comes from not properly addressing differing expectations of a relationship is where the morality/immorality distinction lies here.  If someone says yes they've consented - that's the legal bit out of the way - but if they said yes on the understanding that it's a step on the way to a longer-term relationship that isn't an expectation of their partner, then there's a deception there.  Whether they are being deceived by themselves or their partner will differ from case to case, and the burden of responsibility to ensure that everyone is not just adequately consenting but properly informed (for want of a better term) is where this situation needs to be developed.

I think that it an aspect that I'll confess I'd never really considered before: that 'Yes' means consent has been given, but where the context in which 'Yes' is given raises other aspects.

There have been cases, see link below, where women have found themselves in relationships with male under-cover police officers where the relationship had been established by the police officers in order to gain information - so 'Yes' here would mean the women had given consent, but the context implies that in doing so were being deceived and exploited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relationships_scandal 

[Nearly Sane]

I think that it an aspect that I'll confess I'd never really considered before: that 'Yes' means consent has been given, but where the context in which 'Yes' is given raises other aspects.

There have been cases, see link below, where women have found themselves in relationships with male under-cover police officers where the relationship had been established by the police officers in order to gain information - so 'Yes' here would mean the women had given consent, but the context implies that in doing so were being deceived and exploited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relationships_scandal 

There has been some discussion of this around the trans issue as well in that should someone who is trans and trying to pass as the opposite sex, and some don't, tell someone that they are trans. The difficulty in all of this is we all to some extent attempt to pass as something shinier than we are. I think the important thing about the article is highlighting that consent is merely a starting point for the complexity of sex and that it doesn't necessarily include respect.

[Enki]

Anything that shows a lack of self control and mental discipline is immoral. It could be lust, anger, greed...anything.

Morality is basically about self discipline.

Who gets to decide what is moral/immoral?

I assume by 'anything' you could also include love, pity, sympathy, generosity. Are these immoral also?


It seems to me that we use self discipline to achieve a particular goal and might decide that goal is something that is in our own or others' best interests. That might or might not be considered either healthy or moral, depending on one's point of view.

I suggest that self discipline on its own is no real pointer to moral attitudes or moral actions at all.

[Outrider]

It seems to me that we use self discipline to achieve a particular goal and might decide that goal is something that is in our own or others' best interests. That might or might not be considered either healthy or moral, depending on one's point of view.

I don't see that self-discipline necessary needs to result in abstention as Sriram implies - having a point you think 'that's my line' and sticking to it is as much self-discipline (arguably more) than not venturing into the water in the first place.

O.

[Sriram]

You are coming from the perspective that morality is merely a social standard. What any society decides for itself is morally right. In our society of today, as long as we don't harm or force anything on any other person...it is morally right. 

I am coming from an absolute morality perspective. Our needs and desires are the reason for our immorality. Once we control our mind and thereby our needs and desires, we are nearer to the moral absolute. Eliminating all needs and desires is the absolute standard from a spiritual point of view. That is the aim of spirituality.

In this situation, even if a person is the only person on the planet, he would still need to adhere to that standard. It has nothing to do with anyone else.  Morality is about inner growth.

[Outrider]

You are coming from the perspective that morality is merely a social standard.

Given that it appears to differ between cultures, and there's no reliable evidence of an independent source, that seems a reasonable stance.

What any society decides for itself is morally right. In our society of today, as long as we don't harm or force anything on any other person...it is morally right.

That's certainly one of the significant pillars of it, yes, although I'd suggest there's probably a little more nuance to it than that - does that seem to be a bad system to you?

I am coming from an absolute morality perspective. Our needs and desires are the reason for our immorality.

You can't really just drop an absolute like that and expect everyone to just go 'OK' - on what basis are you suggesting that a need or a desire are the 'reason' for our immorality - what does that even mean?  Is it immoral to want? Is it moral to want, but immoral to do anything to satiate that want?  Does it matter whether it impacts on anyone else, can I be immoral in isolation?

Once we control our mind and thereby our needs and desires, we are nearer to the moral absolute.

Even if you take this stance, why does 'control' need to evolve into 'reject'?

Eliminating all needs and desires is the absolute standard from a spiritual point of view.

Not doing something because you don't want it isn't moral, it's just not living.  Courage isn't the absence of fear, it's the overcoming of fear; similarly, morality isn't not having wants, it's putting right before want.

That is the aim of spirituality.

Well if you're going to throw magic into a discussion on morality we're never going to get anywhere 

O.

In this situation, even if a person is the only person on the planet, he would still need to adhere to that standard. It has nothing to do with anyone else.  Morality is about inner growth.
[/quote]

[Aruntraveller]

Sririam

The need/ desirefor food is essential. By all means try in the name of morality to stop that need. I look forward to your reports over maybe the next two weeks and then.....

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Interesting essay  - bit deeper than the title suggests

https://unherd.com/2020/11/is-casual-sex-immoral/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

Interesting and this part is what I have told my daughters since before they became teenagers:

"So when inexperienced young women are encouraged by liberal feminism to behave exactly as men would like them to, and find themselves feeling used, violated and miserable — as they often do — they have no way of understanding what is happening to them, or recognising that the system is rigged."

I don't think that men / boys are being consciously deceptive in all cases so it's a bit difficult to accuse them of immorality - I think often when a man compliments you or tell you he thinks you're hot or he is crazy about you or he doesn't want to lose you etc etc, he often means it at the time he says it (though it could just be beer goggles). However, I am not sure how a woman is supposed to be able to tell if what he feels now will last 24 hours or even 5 minutes later, depending on who else has just walked in. He might still find you attractive but he also find her attractive...and her...and her. I find that a lot of men I meet seem to find it easy to pay compliments and it doesn't really mean too much to them. So maybe the issue is that some girls/ women read too much into statements and declarations of love and think they imply longevity, when in fact they are more a reflection of male confidence, bravado or self-belief.

If I was attracted to someone I would not necessarily think that would mean much to them if I told them that. But now imagine that I thought of myself as a wonderful human being who would surely brighten up someone's day if I bestowed some of my attention on them and let them know that I thought well of them, then I would feel obliged to be generous and let them know of my feelings. Feeling I was being generous would make me feel good about myself and it would hardly be my fault if they took my declarations as some kind of serious intent to make any kind of commitment, rather than me simply expressing how I felt at that moment in time. Plus it's a numbers game - you tell enough women how great you think they are and eventually one will be interested.

I am not sure if that is really how some men feel about themselves or if it's just bravado to mask a whole host of insecurities because if they showed weakness in public their 'friends' would use it against them. When I observe men together, they often seem to spend a lot of time trying to verbally outdo each other rather than letting their guard down and sharing feelings or concerns etc. So it leaves me wondering why women often let their guard down in these situations, unless they're drunk and alcohol has clouded their judgement.

[Enki]

I don't see that self-discipline necessary needs to result in abstention as Sriram implies - having a point you think 'that's my line' and sticking to it is as much self-discipline (arguably more) than not venturing into the water in the first place.

O.

I do agree. A person might well have a natural flair for something(e.g. music, football) and they might well employ self discipline to develop this ability. I don't see how such self discipline would necessarily entail morality at all.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sririam

The need/ desirefor food is essential. By all means try in the name of morality to stop that need. I look forward to your reports over maybe the next two weeks and then.....

I agree. When I fast during Ramadan I think I am practising self-restraint but I don't see any morality attached to that. It's just practising self-restraint when it comes to food, water, speech, behaviour etc to help me learn to practise self-restraint during the other 11 months of the year.

I think morality in relation to sex would be about the consequences and would be based on the impact we think our individual behaviour has on wider society, and whether the consequences are such that it is worth sacrificing personal desires or individual freedoms. For example, Red Light districts are shown to increase drug use and crime in the area, and results in women / young girls who are not prostitutes being propositioned, which makes them feel scared and unsafe. So that could be a reason to limit the freedom of women to operate as prostitutes in neighbourhoods where single women and families live.

Pornography leads to objectifying of women and girls in real life and pressure on them from men/ boys to look and act like the women who are consenting to being depicted in a pornographic way. So this might result in laws limiting the accessibility of pornography.   

[Sriram]

Sririam

The need/ desirefor food is essential. By all means try in the name of morality to stop that need. I look forward to your reports over maybe the next two weeks and then.....

I think you misunderstand.  Needs and desires are fundamental and a natural part of our biology and psychology. Instinctive needs, social needs and even intellectual needs are natural.  We are able to exist only because of our needs and desires. I am not doubting that at all.

What I am talking about is morality.  In the animal world there is no morality even though animals are all the time fulfilling their needs...even by killing and eating one another.

Morality arises only if self awareness and self analysis is possible.

We can arrive at an absolute morality that is independent of social norms....and that is.....morality is essentially about self discipline through self awareness.   More self disciplined...more moral. More self discipline means less self interest. This is true even if a person is all alone without any social contact.

Humans fall into a spectrum. It is a gradation with different people being in different points on the scale. At one end is rigid self interest and at the other end is absolute lack of self interest.

It is not just about caring for others. That is also a form of social need. 

Lack of self interest is different.  It is at the other end of the spectrum where a person rids himself of all forms of instinctive, social and intellectual needs. That is the absolute state where one gets rid of the ego mind that is such an essential and integral part of living in this world. That is when one rises above the material world and becomes spiritually perfect.     

I am essentially talking of spirituality and its objectives.

[Outrider]

I think you misunderstand.  Needs and desires are fundamental and a natural part of our biology and psychology. Instinctive needs, social needs and even intellectual needs are natural.  We are able to exist only because of our needs and desires. I am not doubting that at all.

What I am talking about is morality.  In the animal world there is no morality even though animals are all the time fulfilling their needs...even by killing and eating one another.

In an animal world there's no morality because there's no higher consciousness to make the complaint 'that's not fair' - without some idea that you 'deserve' a particular treatment or have 'worth' there can be no morality.*

Morality arises only if self awareness and self analysis is possible.

Yes, but only within a cultural context - morality isn't about how you behave in isolation, it's about how you behave within a cultural expectation.

We can arrive at an absolute morality that is independent of social norms....and that is.....morality is essentially about self discipline through self awareness.

How?  How can we, in isolation, decide what is right or wrong for everyone, given that we only have on input?

More self disciplined...more moral. More self discipline means less self interest.

I don't see that either of these is true - if you are disciplined about, say, mowing your lawn, how is it more moral to ensure that you don't just do it every second Sunday, but at exactly 11am on every second Sunday?  If I'm interested in robbing a bank, then putting in the exercise time to have the fitness to run between cameras in the blind spots is anything but selfless, but it is self-discipline.

Humans fall into a spectrum. It is a gradation with different people being in different points on the scale. At one end is rigid self interest and at the other end is absolute lack of self interest.

It is not just about caring for others. That is also a form of social need.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Lack of self interest is different.  It is at the other end of the spectrum where a person rids himself of all forms of instinctive, social and intellectual needs.

I think that's called depression, and we tend to think of it as either an illness or at least a symptom of some underlying problem.

That is the absolute state where one gets rid of the ego mind that is such an essential and integral part of living in this world.

That's not self discipline, that's self-negation - if you value nothing of what you want or need, you fail to value yourself, you become an irrelevance to even yourself.

That is when one rises above the material world and becomes spiritually perfect.

Even if there were evidence of something 'else', to forgo entirely what you have and what you are is not a 'moral' issue; if you're doing it so that you can 'progress' then your motivation is entirely self-interest, surely?

I am essentially talking of spirituality and its objectives.

And that's part of the difference between our takes on this, because I'm intrinsically trying to deal with morality in the real world.

O.

* I appreciate that there is a growing body of evidence that shows some animals demonstrating a sense of anger or outrage at unequal treatment; I've not read enough into it to know if anyone's been able to extrapolate any sort of reasoning or moral behaviour from that or if it's a purely instinctive 'kin-selection' form of behaviour.

[Aruntraveller]

I think you misunderstand.  Needs and desires are fundamental and a natural part of our biology and psychology. Instinctive needs, social needs and even intellectual needs are natural.  We are able to exist only because of our needs and desires. I am not doubting that at all.

I didn't misunderstand. You posted incoherently.

[ekim]

Even if there were evidence of something 'else', to forgo entirely what you have and what you are is not a 'moral' issue; if you're doing it so that you can 'progress' then your motivation is entirely self-interest, surely?

And that's part of the difference between our takes on this, because I'm intrinsically trying to deal with morality in the real world.

O.

To me, 'morals' are social habits or the results of social conditioning used to integrate a society.  They can vary from society to society and can be imposed by a 'carrot and stick' method.  Those who fail the process have often been ostracised as outlaws, heretics, criminals and banished, imprisoned or executed to 'keep the peace'.  As regards the topic 'casual sex being immoral', in the past it was probably associated with illegitimacy or possibly sexually transmitted diseases and why 'bastard' became an insult.  Perhaps with the advent of contraception 'casual sex' has become more acceptable to some societies and where  religious persuasion has diminished.

[Sriram]

In an animal world there's no morality because there's no higher consciousness to make the complaint 'that's not fair' - without some idea that you 'deserve' a particular treatment or have 'worth' there can be no morality.*

Yes, but only within a cultural context - morality isn't about how you behave in isolation, it's about how you behave within a cultural expectation.

How?  How can we, in isolation, decide what is right or wrong for everyone, given that we only have on input?

I don't see that either of these is true - if you are disciplined about, say, mowing your lawn, how is it more moral to ensure that you don't just do it every second Sunday, but at exactly 11am on every second Sunday?  If I'm interested in robbing a bank, then putting in the exercise time to have the fitness to run between cameras in the blind spots is anything but selfless, but it is self-discipline.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

I think that's called depression, and we tend to think of it as either an illness or at least a symptom of some underlying problem.

That's not self discipline, that's self-negation - if you value nothing of what you want or need, you fail to value yourself, you become an irrelevance to even yourself.

Even if there were evidence of something 'else', to forgo entirely what you have and what you are is not a 'moral' issue; if you're doing it so that you can 'progress' then your motivation is entirely self-interest, surely?

And that's part of the difference between our takes on this, because I'm intrinsically trying to deal with morality in the real world.

O.

* I appreciate that there is a growing body of evidence that shows some animals demonstrating a sense of anger or outrage at unequal treatment; I've not read enough into it to know if anyone's been able to extrapolate any sort of reasoning or moral behaviour from that or if it's a purely instinctive 'kin-selection' form of behaviour.

The essence of spirituality is about reducing our ego self and increasing our higher nature (divine nature).  The higher nature is without wants (at least in this world).

I wrote of self discipline as meant to reduce selfishness through self analysis and introspection.  It is a slow process and not everyone will achieve it in this lifetime.





 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My impression from the article in the OP is that morality is essentially about not being unkind - so having casual sex with someone who you know is likely to want more than a casual encounter and who will develop feelings is deemed unkind. So I don't think a moral position can be adopted without empathy and an emotional reaction to a certain set of circumstances being a component of that position. That makes morality subjective and dependent on the circumstances in society at the time.

If, on the other hand, you don't know the other person's expectations it presumably is not considered unkind to proceed with the encounter as you are not engaged in any kind of deception.

Of course it's difficult to know in advance whether a person might suddenly develop feelings they had no intention of developing, or they might realise the chemistry they thought was there just isn't there anymore now you have had sex and think "ick" so people who consent to participating in sex accept that risk, consider the consequences of misjudging their expectations and decide how to proceed based on their individual appetites for risk.

As the article says, people have individual intuitions about how they feel about participating in sex, and should be self-aware enough to identify and then stick to their own personal lines regarding risk-taking or accept the consequences of a misjudging.

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The essence of spirituality is about reducing our ego self and increasing our higher nature (divine nature).  The higher nature is without wants (at least in this world).

I wrote of self discipline as meant to reduce selfishness through self analysis and introspection.  It is a slow process and not everyone will achieve it in this lifetime. 

The higher nature you describe still seems to have a want - it wants to not want anything so the higher nature can never be free of wants.

Or I have not understood your use of words. What do you see as the definition of a want in this scenario?

[Outrider]

The essence of spirituality is about reducing our ego self and increasing our higher nature (divine nature).

Perhaps at risk of diverging from the topic, but how denying who and what you are constitute 'increasing our higher nature'?  What even is our higher nature?

The higher nature is without wants (at least in this world).

Sounds dully - if you have no wants, no desires, then there can be no satisfaction, no enjoyment, no achievement, it's just an apathetic pointless existence.  That doesn't sound like something to aspire to, it sounds like the sort of philosophy pushed out to try to pacify people whose lives are already miserable.

I wrote of self discipline as meant to reduce selfishness through self analysis and introspection.

And I think that's a laudible goal, but your method for it appears to be to try to dismiss any emotion or aspiration, and to merely exist - that seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It is a slow process and not everyone will achieve it in this lifetime.

I'm failing to see a point in achieving it at all - I get you have this 'ascension' idea in the next life, but I just don't see any reason to think that a) it's' there or b) if it is that we have the first clue about what we might or not need to get there or to do there.

O.





 
[/quote]

[Bramble]

To be entirely without wants would necessarily involve abandoning the desire for moral perfection, spiritual growth and self-discipline. Buddhism struggles with this incoherence too, positing craving as the cause of the suffering it seeks to extinguish through a long and arduous path of spiritual practice. It's fascinating to observe how people evolve variously along this path. Some realise eventually that their craving for release is in fact a significant cause of their ongoing unhappiness and put down the burden. Others seem to need the sense of grand purpose that a lofty spiritual goal provides and continue to feed on it. For the former group liberation is from the transcendent idealism that for the latter group constitutes enlightenment itself. Horses for courses.