On the morality of sex

Yes but sexuality is more difficult to controls. Today, it's sexuality that defines if moral is acceptable or not.

No, it isn't clear, but I might be stupid...
Where do the moral problems arise from?

I think it's because sex for the vast majority of people and contrary to what many may claim is accompanied by very strong emotions that prompt people to act in a certain way.

It can be manipulative on one hand and emotionally painful if unsuccessful. Because of this, people want to regulate it some how.

Turns out modern youfs under 23ish are having the least sex of the past few generations- this despite society becoming even more overtly sexually explicit and the concept of detached sex being prolific.

People try to act tough but sex = love, which is basically cocaine so people are afraid of it.

Because emotions
Can't disobey our instinctual programming

Because sex is tied to emotions for evolutionary reasons. Love for your mate to make you keep taking care of her and ensure she'll successfully bear your offspring. Jealousy to make sure they're your offspring and no one else's. Envy to make sure you actually try to get a mate.

Combine this with the fact that if you remove all social constraint, you end up with a situation where the majority of females will flock to the top 10% or so of most desirable males, and you have a recipe for enormous chaos and violence and thus a need to codify sexuality.

That makes sense (though the less young people having sex part can be associated with females flocking to the top males already being widespread, but still).

So basically, sex = emotions and that's what its special standpoint, traditions aside, boils down to and always will?
And in that regard, just to clarify, sex and emotions being bound to one another is not an absolute for all humanity, but still holds true for nearly all of it and that's where its morality arises from?

By now I'm somewhere quieter and could word the OP better, but it's pretty much already been replied.

Thank you to all who replied.

Free love

There are many reasons:

Let's first start on the problem it gives to people.

Sex is a strong kind of unnecessary pleasure. It makes you hunger for it. And when you have more sex (and don't have much of a thought about it), you will want more of it, with more partners, positions, etc. When you can't satisfy your hunger, you will become frustrated. When you can satisfy your hunger, it will reappear soon after, stronger.

Meaning that, unlike what modern mainstream media opinion says, having casual sex makes you unhappier.

When you add that to modern mainstream media culture, that says that sexual pleasure is super important to a healthy life, we get a disaster for society, as well. Why? First because of the effect this belief has on people. Those that don't find partners end up feeling like crap. Others will look for partners that satisfy them sexually. Meaning that they will select marriage partners based on physical pleasure, instead of more important traits.

And then, you have the second problem. The effect of the combination of this belief and promiscuity on marriage. Someone that think pleasure is super important, that is addicted to it, will think that marriage is about sex. What is the problem with it? Eventually romantic love cools. With this, we end up with adulteries and broken relationships.

And what is the problem with broken marriages? The effect it has on kids. Couple the problems of being raised by divorced parents with the belief that pleasure and romantic love are the most important things in life and you end up with a broken generation.

Because prior to the middle of the 20th century, condoms weren't really a widespread thing. Having casual sex with random people meant producing bastards and spreading venereal disease.

You're basically asking why a set of moral values that evolved in response to the way things had been for literally tens of thousands of years hasn't change in a single generation. These things take a long time.

This is bullshit.
Producing bastards and spreading venereal disease are the smallest problems.

First reason is obviously . Up until recently it was straight up dangerous.

Second reason is much harder and what everyone is trying to get at. Gist of it is that it ISN'T just a pleasure thing, the act can't be completely severed from intimacy. And the idea of freely being that close to others is frightening, how can anybody be close to you if they're so fickle?

Watch the movie 'Love & Pop' for a memetastic look at the issue.

Just to keep things going, there's a hormone that's part of brain chemistry called oxytocin. It is linked to social bonding and monogamous pair bonding, as it is released in particularly high quantities during orgasm and sex generally. It seems to make people more trusting and attached.

Also, estrogen stimulates the release of oxytocin, while testosterone suppresses it. This might partially explain why women are generally more attached to sex partners than men are.

> having casual sex makes you unhappier.
Only, if you are retard who can't deal with pleasure by being responsibly moderate. Most sane people, as they aren't retarded would reach a certain point where there is enough pleasure as it is. Basically, your entire posts based on weak assumption that satisfaction with pleasure doesn't even exist. It's a complete bullshit. If you aren't literally mentally ill, you wouldn't become some crazy nymphomaniac.

This is all nice in theory, but in real life, this is not what happens, if you look at statistics.

People who have casual sex are dependent on it.

What statistics do you have to prove your point?

...

> all these women only statistics
It is enough for counter point, but no enough for a generalization on population as a whole.

It takes two to tango, m8. The vast majority of the population is heterosexual, so the effects of female promiscuity necessarily impact men.

Anywhere before mid-XX century, you had no condoms/pill to avoid pregnancy. There where also no antibiotics to stop venereal disease.

A community could technically pool all children into some kind of daycare with no parents involved or needed, but the average human is less than 100 in IQ so they are extremelly selfish and would not pay for nobodys children but theirs, so, nobody actually got to implement that system, ever.

Therefore, whose children belonged to wich parent was serious business and a life or death situation, as bastards usually ended up as beggars in the streets with no one willing to lay a hand.

You ALWAYS have to force the average human into doing the right thing, or they wont be able to do it.

>weak assumption that satisfaction with pleasure doesn't even exist

You are correct. The problem is the attitude you bring to it. People become dependent on sex or any other impermanent thing because they're weak-willed and/or don't know how to live in the present. A truly mature person could have casual sex a million times and never become dependent

Seems like case of reverse causation. People who are lucky enough to find perfect partner from a first try naturally would be more happy. Meanwhile, the more unlucky people ends with shitty options pool so it goes downhill from here.

People who have casual sex are not looking for the partner of their lives.

See this quote:

> “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.

>People become dependent on sex or any other impermanent thing because they're weak-willed and/or don't know how to live in the present.

People who didn't, avoided casual sex because it tends to make them more dependent of it.
See Stoics, Buddhists, etc

If you take Musashi:

>Do not seek pleasure for its own sake.
>Be detached from desire your whole life.
>Do not let yourself be guided by the feeling of lust or love.
>Do not hold on to possessions you no longer need.

Sex is intensely desired and intensely emotionally, men are willing to pay to have sex with total strangers, it's easy to use sex to manipulate people, it's easy for sex to deeply hurt people's feelings and thus breed resentment, jealousy and so on.

Sex as purely a method of pleasure can be fairly addicting, in fact it's often the basis for measuring how pleasurable something like a drug is. Addiction to anything, let alone something as powerful as sex, is usually related to all forms of bad behavior.

Finally, it's usually in a nation or culture's best interest to regulate it's populations reproduction. You don't want your people breeding ground with your enemies, you don't want fags not doing their fair share of reproducing with women.

How many Buddhists were honestly detached from desire? However many of them became a Buddha?

If you have the willpower to live life as a good Buddhist, you probably have the willpower to engage in pleasure without becoming a slave to it.

Date a bunch of undesirables til you find a nice guy xD

Cancer

>How many Buddhists were honestly detached from desire? However many of them became a Buddha?

Dunno, but as far as I know, detaching yourself from desire is a pretty important goal for Buddhists.

>If you have the willpower to live life as a good Buddhist, you probably have the willpower to engage in pleasure without becoming a slave to it.

You become less dependent on pleasure by not indulging on it. If you drink whiskey every day, you become more dependent on it.

> See Stoics, Buddhists
Being Stoic or Buddhist doesn't magically makes you strong-willed person, user. Avoidance is way for ones who doubt their will to resist temptations and most competent people who are good with a things like that aren't the ones who follows set of an arbitrary rules anyway. Because there is zero need for using formal recommendations for them.

>Being Stoic or Buddhist doesn't magically makes you strong-willed person, user.

I don't know a lot about Buddhists (judging about those burning Monks, they seem to be strong), but Stoics (the real ones) are extremely strong-willed.

>Avoidance is way for ones who doubt their will to resist temptations

You train temperance by practicing it.
You don't train "I'm not going to depend on smoking cigarettes" by smoking cigarettes and them telling yourself you don't need them later.

>and most competent people who are good with a things like that aren't the ones who follows set of an arbitrary rules anyway. Because there is zero need for using formal recommendations for them.

It is not arbitrary rules, taken out of nowhere. There is a whole philosophy behind it.

Dependence have very small to do with pleasure. You would be dependent on your daily routine, if you repeat it long enough... I am sure that many people posting here not because it's fun or even interesting. They simply repeat a neutral action, without any strong interests or pleasure, hate or even just strong feeling of apathy to it. Buddhist, who practices his, whatever he does, day to day as part of his obscure obsessive circle isn't that better than guy with his whiskey. They both feel nothing to their obsession, anyway. Like, if even there was some initial joy from bottle it would be gone long ago, isn't it?

Couldn't the Buddhist guy just say "I'm out" anytime, though? And comparing a Buddhist to a whiskey addict is a bit far-fetched.

>Dependence have very small to do with pleasure.

Actually, it does. Brain Reward Structures, dopamine, blablabla

>You would be dependent on your daily routine, if you repeat it long enough... I am sure that many people posting here not because it's fun or even interesting. They simply repeat a neutral action, without any strong interests or pleasure, hate or even just strong feeling of apathy to it.

If you can stop, never coming back, and not miss it even a little, it is not something that makes you dependent of it.

>Buddhist, who practices his, whatever he does, day to day as part of his obscure obsessive circle isn't that better than guy with his whiskey. They both feel nothing to their obsession, anyway.

The Buddhist is supposed to free himself from everything.

>Like, if even there was some initial joy from bottle it would be gone long ago, isn't it?

Yes, that's one of the problems with hedonism.

> You train temperance by practicing it.
You don't train temperance by *starving to death*, you train it by eating the right amount of food. So the same logic in work here. You make decision. What quantity of sex would be right for you? The next step is to use self-control to follow decision. The more external means of control you choose, the less real self-control you have i.e. if you just stop smoke just because you decided to stop it much more better than throwing cigarettes from your house, relying on your friends to stop you, other externals means like that. Because in the last case, you just made yourself dependent on whatever counter measures you are done, while your initial goal was not to be dependent, at all.

This must become some sort of activism. The whole thing doesn't work and is danger to humanity

> Couldn't the Buddhist guy just say "I'm out" anytime, though?
This is good question and I doesn't really know if answer is yes or no here. How many Buddhists, like, just decide that it was enough Buddhism in their life? Hard to know if guy can out anytime or not, if he wasn't hardcore addict or such.

>You don't train temperance by *starving to death*, you train it by eating the right amount of food. So the same logic in work here. You make decision. What quantity of sex would be right for you?

The right amount of food, that is, the one necessary to sustain your healthily. If you eat more than this, you are not practicing temperance, but indulging on food and becoming more dependent on it (even your stomach changes sizes after a while).

What sex is for? Having children
Is having casual sex practicing temperance? No way in hell, you are having sex with the aim of pleasure. This is similar to eating more than you should because the food tastes good.

Why do you think Epicurus was celibate?

>The next step is to use self-control to follow decision. The more external means of control you choose, the less real self-control you have i.e. if you just stop smoke just because you decided to stop it much more better than throwing cigarettes from your house, relying on your friends to stop you, other externals means like that. Because in the last case, you just made yourself dependent on whatever counter measures you are done, while your initial goal was not to be dependent, at all.

And who here saying anything about "moving yourself to an uninhibited island without anyone from the opposite sex"? I'm talking about not indulging in addicting acts.
I'm not talking about "throwing cigarettes from your house" to not be addicted to cigarettes. I'm talking about not smoking.

(Me)
A good begin would be to found the fact that all people have the same basic feelings about the specialities.
I think it is just something interesting to do. But it doesn't have a stable beginning as far as I see. Maybe I shouldn't be the one making this beginning.

I don't know, but, in my dream last night, I was part of some kind of birthday party with these four nearly identical blondes, the party being for one of them.
The four of them stripped and lined themselves up in one of those stockade things where you have to bend over. I was partaking my way down the line when I reached the birthday girl and she didn't like it, so I stopped and that's all I remember about the dream.
I don't know if this means anything regarding the morals, but this was my subconscious thought process. It may be my virginity, but the thought of sex upon an unwilling partner doesn't sound enjoyable to me.

> Brain Reward Structures, dopamine, blablabla
Dopamine is about goal pursuing, concentration and things like that... It isn't as much about the pleasure as it was about success i.e. it's pretty easy to doing things just for doing things with it and not without any pleasure of doing them in a mind. So, example with Buddhist is pretty legit here as he also stuck in dopamine circle of the success in his pursuit to be free from desire or any other ideals. As your intent doesn't matter because your brain only cares about repeating actions in some kind of routine, not about how could you justify vicious circle with your words.

> the one necessary to sustain your healthily
No. The right amount of food isn't the one that just necessary for sustain. Right quality of the life isn't about just being not dead. Any sane person could agree with that.
> What sex is for? Having children.
Sex have many other functions beyond that. This is pretty clear biological and cultural fact.

>you are having sex with the aim of pleasure. This is similar to eating more than you should because the food tastes good.

>more than you should

Exact amounts are not healthy or livable. Especially if the reason is incorrect facts.

>No. The right amount of food isn't the one that just necessary for sustain. Right quality of the life isn't about just being not dead. Any sane person could agree with that.

The right amount of food is the necessary to sustain you HEALTHILY. I'm not talking about the necessary amount of food to make you a living skeleton, but the necessary amount of food to make you healthy.

>Sex have many other functions beyond that. This is pretty clear biological and cultural fact.

Then, tell me about the positive functions of sex for the sole objective of having pleasure with someone you are not married with.

>Exact amounts are not healthy or livable. Especially if the reason is incorrect facts.

Explain.

> with someone you are not married with
Sex is a bonding expierence, if you doesn't trust someone enough to have sex with them, than to marry that person should be out of the question.

In this case: the whole sex thing is based on incorrect facts. . And this shows.

So the exact amounts are wrong. If exact amounts, everyone must be able to check too. Apart from the fact that incorrect information and exact amounts based on that will lead to dishonorable and not working situations.

>Sex is a bonding expierence, if you doesn't trust someone enough to have sex with them, than to marry that person should be out of the question.

We are talking about casual sex, not sex with your married partner. If you marry someone, that usually means you will have sex with that person.

>why don't people just fuck when horny?
They do.
Excessively abusing sex for pleasure is lust, a capital sin. Also, it sprouts weird fetishes and could corrupt your relationship.

Sounds as an subjective opinion. If you make a mistake in this you enlarge your risk of hell.

How is lust a sin on itself. Or what is excessive sex?

The Buddhist embarked on his path through thought-out reasoning, though, and believes he is doing the right thing. The whiskey dude could be fully aware he shouldn't be drinking and he still wouldn't be able to put the bottle down quickly anyway.

I did say let's take stuff like sins and all out of the discussion.

The reason sex shouldn't be had casually,is that its purpose isn't pleasure,it's purpose is to create..Too many selfish people having sex for pleasure is the reason that abortion rates are so high.

*too many unreasonable people having sex :^)
Keep in mind I'm pro-life

>unreasonable

>pro-life
You must see that any positive effect is undone by the status of the whole thing.

What do you mean by unreasonable?

As in not using contraception.

It all depends on your goals in life, really. Casual sex can be detrimental to certain goals whereas it does not matter for other ones. It is not good for the stability of a relationship or religious practices relating to Gnostic (I don't agree with sexual Tantric or Magick stuff).

>Help the undesirables perpetuate their genetic material
>while looking for an useful idiot to take care of all dem babbys and yourself
>women advice