Article - Is casual sex immoral? - on sex positivity and its effect on women

[Goosefoot]

I thought people might find this an interesting article - I'll come back and give my thoughts later but there are plenty of interesting ideas in there.

unherd.com/2020/11/is-casual-sex-immoral/

The concern for me about any person who did this would be would they do it to a live animal? Is this an indicator of possible, future harmful behaviour?’

In the scenario nobody else knows about it so whether it is an indicator wouldn’t matter. The moral questions would be if carrying out the act had an impact on the person that increased the likelihood of them, and if acting that way was harmful to that person’s mind in the moment they committed it. Adherents of traditional morality would answer yes to both

I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to rewrite what I wrote. I thought it was perfectly obvious my issue was would this behaviour, which is itself harms no-one, lead to activity which does.

I'm not convinced that fucking a dead chicken is morally wrong- although what is morally wrong is the conditions 99.99% of chickens live and die in.

Sorry, then, I misread you. I thought you meant that it was an indication rather than a cause of future behaviour.

The concern for me about any person who did this would be would they do it to a live animal? Is this an indicator of possible, future harmful behaviour?’

Intent matters when crimes are being considered, surely it also does in matters of 'morality'.
There would be a difference, I think, between someone who has a weird and unhygienic taste in masturbatory aids (ewww but not 'immoral') and someone who thinks of a piece of meat as a sexual partner...and vice versa.

Both necrophilia and bestiality are signs of some kind of psychopathology. Someone having sex with a dead animal has really headed down a dark path and needs therapy
Yes, agree. But unless that person is someone very close to me 1) I probably wouldn't know and 2) I wouldn't want or need to be involved.
Its not that I think its ok. Its that its totally outside my sphere of influence so I'm not focusing on that

It's not a very original article. The Divine Comedy made the same point in a more entertaining way 20 years ago (listen to Generation X).

It's easy to see why sex would be regarded as kind of disgusting. Genital, and oral, secretions are as dangerous as blood or faeces when it comes to passing on pathogens, and humans naturally avoid coming into contact with pathogens. The sex drive has to be powerful to overcome that innate avoidance. (Maybe that's the evolutionary basis of the clitoris?)
Maybe that's why indicators of health and youth are widely regarded as sexy too.
Then you add on the fear of pregnancy, and the vulnerabilities that come with it for women, and you have the basis for traditional sexual morality. The social conditioning great out of the need to reconcile the urge to do it and the consequences of it.
'It's different for girls', generations grew up hearing - and it is. Psychologically, biologically.
No one seems to want to engage with the psychological and emotional aspects at all. Hand waving all that away does girls no favours

Marriage also harms women.

Is it also immoral on these grounds?

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Marriage also harms women.

Is it also immoral on these grounds?

Marriage works well for many women. I'm not sure there's a general alternative which works better than long term committed partnership, is there?

A marriage which harms either partner could be termed 'immoral' though I don't think it's a particularly appropriate term.

Quentin, the point is that Haidt set it up as a thought experiment. It is supposed to be outside of everyone’s sphere of influence; the person would never know what your opinion was. You are being asked do you think what the person is doing is immoral.

Marriage works well for many women. I'm not sure there's a general alternative which works better than long term committed partnership, is there

But casual sex works well for many women too ... Yet it is considered 'harmful'.

‘If it makes you feel like shit afterwards don't do it again. Casual sex isn't for everyone’

But the pressure to do it is huge. As a young woman my self esteem was on the floor. Lots of my friends had casual sex. I couldn’t do it. I suffered with anxiety and needed to feel safe with a partner. I spent my late teens and early 20’s in a state of feeling a constant failure, or there was something wrong with me, or I’d never find a partner.

I look back and feel very sorry for that confused unhappy young woman.

Whilst l never think it is immoral l think it can be damaging to young women. Very damaging.

But casual sex works well for many women too ... Yet it is considered 'harmful'

As far as pregnancy risk goes indont see how it makes a difference whether you sleep with 1 man 10 times or 10 men once.

Obviously its an increase in the risk of catching an STI but you can take precautions and make it as safe as possible. Which is something quite often that long term couples don't do..sure they might have a coil or an implant but you trust your husband so may well not use anything else. In some ways maybe that's more risky than sex with strangers as you protect yourself with strangers or casual partners but you don't with your husband who could be sleeping with other women and you don't know until its too late.

Besides this whole morality thing is very male focused. Its something men are obsessed with . Happy to shag you of course but God forbid you have snagged someone else....

In fact there are alot of names girls spend their entire lives being called by men and boys based on their perception of how many people or if you have slept with anyone at all...

I'm not sure there's a general alternative which works better than long term committed partnership, is there?

I have wondered whether many heterosexual women would be happier living with a female best friend (including raising children together if they want to do that) and having romantic affairs with men on the side.

I think women can get a lot out of short term romantic affairs that last maybe 3 months to a couple of years. I know I certainly have. This makes a lot more sense to me than "polyamory" which seems like a recipe for jealousy and hurt.

@NonnyMouse1337

I'm now wondering whether there is some evolutionary explanation for disgust

There is.

Types of disgust and levels of intensity do vary among individuals, but there are certain instinctive disgusts - rotting food, certain diseases, smells, visual cues etc. And even sexual practices can invoke such feelings - most well adjusted people will feel disgust at the thought of sex with a parent or sibling. It's how we stop ourselves from inbreeding as a species.

Disgust is something Jonathan Height has actually spent much of his career studying. There are inherent causes of disgust such as smells like rotting food, however the sexual practices side of things are much more of a learned experience. Sex with close family members for example is NOT a natural disgust and was considered normal in times gone by. Our sociocultural morals and laws are the only thing responsible for the disgust we ourselves feel towards such acts.

But casual sex works well for many women too ... Yet it is considered 'harmful'

that's what most of us now disagree with, that it's generally 'harmful' and therefore worthy of a blanket 'thou shalt not'.

In the past, before contraception, antibiotics, condoms etc, a broad general rule against casual sex (codified and enforced by the concept of 'morality') guarded against some harms, but also policed women's fertility and men's paternity.

Modern science has disrupted that, so we are freer to consider each case in its context for whether it's in any way 'harmful'. Obvious a lot of this is opaque to outsiders.

Casual sex has become the way in which women attempt to find a committed partner. That is bound to leave many women very distressed, as they are becoming intimate and emotionally and physically vulnerable with a casual sex partner- things they morally want to do within a committed relationship.

@twoHopes

I'm not sure there's a general alternative which works better than long term committed partnership, is there?

I have wondered whether many heterosexual women would be happier living with a female best friend (including raising children together if they want to do that) and having romantic affairs with men on the side.

I think women can get a lot out of short term romantic affairs that last maybe 3 months to a couple of years. I know I certainly have. This makes a lot more sense to me than "polyamory" which seems like a recipe for jealousy and hurt.

I'm sure those women may well be happier, however I would remind those women that their children would be sure to suffer as a consequence and that a committed stable relationship would always be the optimal solution above a lifestyle that puts the mothers sex life first and foremost.

Casual sex has become the way in which women attempt to find a committed partner. That is bound to leave many women very distressed

I agree with this and I think many women, especially many young women are incredibly naive around this. A friend of mine has been having casual sex with a guy for a few months now and is waiting for him to ask her to be his girlfriend. I keep gently trying to tell her that maybe he just sees it as casual sex and not a stepping stone to a relationship but she thinks I'm just being negative.

however I would remind those women that their children would be sure to suffer as a consequence

Why do you think that? I don't see any evidence that a committed stable relationship between two close friends is worse for children than a committed stable relationship between a married couple.

If you were having a committed stable relationship with another person that you both intended to last permanently to benefit the other person and their children, that is based on a very strong love. Despite it not being romantic or sexual love, it is essentially very close to what is being asked of in marriage.

it's easy to see why sex would be regarded as kind of disgusting. Genital, and oral, secretions are as dangerous as blood or faeces when it comes to passing on pathogens, and humans naturally avoid coming into contact with pathogens. The sex drive has to be powerful to overcome that innate avoidance

There's no 'innate' avoidance of sex and no natural barrier to avoid secretions due to pathogens! My lord, it's only been a century or so that we've even known about 'pathogens' nevermind how they're spread.

I'm sure those women may well be happier, however I would remind those women that their children would be sure to suffer as a consequence and that a committed stable relationship would always be the optimal solution above a lifestyle that puts the mothers sex life first and foremost.

But surely you could argue (serial) monogamy is the approach which centres a parent’s sexual/romantic life in the act of parenting? The situation described (which sounds pretty bloody stable and idyllic from my perspective TBH) means a parent/mother’s romantic life is treated as something completely separate/secondary to the raising of children in a stable, caring home.

Quentin, the point is that Haidt set it up as a thought experiment. It is supposed to be outside of everyone’s sphere of influence; the person would never know what your opinion was. You are being asked do you think what the person is doing is immoral.
I understand that which is why I think it was a bad line for this article to go down.
I think it is immoral but I don't think "morals" are what stop most people having sexwith dead chickens.
I do think morals and values are what stop most people coercing others into sex. I disagree with the article that Liberal feminism is a significant cause of damaging sexual practices

If your romantic life is wholly separate to the raising of your children then it is of no benefit to them.

@twoHopes

however I would remind those women that their children would be sure to suffer as a consequence

Why do you think that? I don't see any evidence that a committed stable relationship between two close friends is worse for children than a committed stable relationship between a married couple.

Then you've missed the huge amounts of research done on the negative consequences to children in general that are brought up without a father. In many cases it's unavoidable but it should never be considered an optimal solution for any parent to aim for strings of 3 month relationships with other men. This is bound to only offer the most unstable of environments