what's wrong with prostitution, pornography, casual sex?

In the consideration of the topic of casual sex, I think that there’s probably too much focus on how we evolved sexually in terms of strictly reproductive biology and not enough focus on how we evolved sexually in terms of building and sustaining connections biology. Our culture has developed with both influences, but it’s always a struggle to find the balance. Both male and female brains are wired for, and thus capable, of rational and logical thinking. Generally speaking, however, males’ emotional development has evolved to consider the sexual act itself as the goal so that the sperm fertilizes eggs. Just as females’ emotional development has evolved to consider as goals what happens next: the conception, birth and care of the offspring. I’m not saying that either is superior because both are necessary, but I think our societal imbalance comes, in part, from too much emphasis on the male perspective…which is, of course, the result of historical patriarchy and the one-sided influence of men in the public sphere.

Casual sex makes sense emotionally for males, particularly for younger ones in the prime of their sexual virility. But females of childbearing age have a different makeup. Unfortunately, the way that sexuality is treated by the popular culture, by the media and the entertainment industry, is heavily influenced toward the male perspective of sexuality. Women have only begun to gain economic and political power on their own…and it’s a mixed bag when they do, because the dregs of patriarchy persist. That’s why you find some women supporting porn or other forms of objectification of females, those that portray them as male fantasy fuck objects for economic gain. That’s the negative aspect of low-cultural influence. It’s counter-balanced by the higher level of cultural influence that drives both men and women toward achieving balance in their own sexuality, putting it in its proper place and working in their lives to build the character of their children and strengthen their families and their communities.

I guess the point is that we all have brains that are programmed to make us vulnerable to sexual behavioral imbalance, but those same brains are also capable of self-reflection and contemplation about the consequences of behavioral excess to ourselves and those we care about. Brains are capable of this form of maturity, in other words. And we’re social creatures, which is why our connections, meaning our families, friends and communities are necessary to help us to find and maintain the balance. And each generation has to leave behind the legacy of balance by teaching the next generation how to live that way, too.

Well, that’s a pretty meaningless statement, overall. Of course those things don’t NECESSARILY make the world a better place, any more than sex is NECESSARILY pleasurable or creates happiness. It’s just that those things make the world a better place ON AVERAGE. Sex is pleasurable ON AVERAGE (although probably a lower average). I mean, obviously the world is better off for having literature and math and so on. Even thought we’re fucking up our environment, people today still live MUCH better than they did 100 or 1000 years ago - and more importantly, we have every reason to expect that that’s true of future generations, too.

Sex doesn’t improve the lives of people in general - it’s just nice for the specific people engaging in sex. Those sorts of “selfish” activities are still important - I wouldn’t want to give up sex, or movies, or any of the other things that are fun but don’t help others. But the activities that DO improve the world for everyone else are of a greater sort of importance. Obviously no one should live a life without either category - but if I had to choose which category was greater in my life, I would choose, and have chosen, the category of things that make the world a better place. I think others who have the capacity to create change for good should make the same choice.

I honestly don’t see how you are arguing that math and literature are on average better than sex or make the world a better place more than good clean sex. That seems like a completely subjective opinion to me. Is there a rational or empirical argument to show this?
And regarding the italics, if global warming and climate change is true, we actually have good reason to expect that our present advances and pleasures due to technology will completely eliminate future generations of the human species after the next generation or two, so I’m not convinced, and neither are many scientists, that we should be expecting this of future generations as well. [that’s assuming a nuclear weapon doesn’t take out a major american city(ies) before then].

Sex is an incredibly generous act if you’re doing it right. An artist/writer/scientist who neglects or abandons the people around him / his loved ones for his art or work is incredibly selfish in another way.

what’s wrong with prostitution, pornography, casual sex?

God says its bad, END OF STORY

other than that they are all perfectly acceptible

you’re entitled to your opinions.

However, being an atheist doesn’t prevent me from finding some practices inadequate. Pedophilia or abuse of women, for instance.

Commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls of all ages is one of the most destructive practices of gender-based violence. Prostitution assaults the human rights and dignity of women and girls. Victims of the sex industry often suffer severe physical and mental health consequences including injuries from beatings and rapes, psychological trauma, HIV/AIDS and substance addiction. Sex trafficking and its adverse consequences are escalating as a result of globalization.

Sex trafficking is to 19th century slavery is what high-end voluntary prostitution is to owning a small business.

Just remember, every time that anyone of us has sex… God is watching!

What a sick pervert!

Twiffy-

In the context of the OP’s question, it actually does mean something.

Sure, the threa has evolved - but how many people are you going to scold here? Just state your view, dude. There are plenty of people in the world, and in the US, who’s position is very close to “sex is inherently bad”.

Jesus.

And yeah - average hooker. We can imagine that her life would be so much better if she didn’t hook. But there are many ways to screw up a life.

I think my problem is this - a lot of stuff that’s fun, or lucrative, or good in some way, entails risk. Let people take those risks. But to invent some monolithic monster - “The Casual Sex Monster”, for instance, is to ignore the persons, the choices, and the real risks - for a risk has reward. Risk doesn’t mean total and certain failure.

It just seems that when it comes to sex - sex is singled out. Mountain climbing has risk - let’s hear some diatribes against mountain climbing. Sex is some sort of loaded gun - but even a loaded gun entails no great danger if you know what you’re doing.

The lowest common denominator, the worst case scenario - the scariest case. Mindless drones hypnotised by cleavage in a magazine ad. Wasted lives. Poerlessness.

We’re all so powerless. It makes me sick. I breathe the stench of fear, and it makes me sick.

People screw. That’s what they do. When they can. I realise that they can do each other harm. But the victim mentality that says that every time some college girl fucks some drunk frat boy, she is chipping away at her “self-esteem” - if she had any to begin with, it wouldn;t bother her.

This is just the Abrahamic influence. It’s a cesspool. It’s cultural. The act of coitus itself is roundly misunderstood. It’s just body parts. I can’t even talk about this any more.

:laughing: =D>

God is definitely-watching… :evilfun:

At least his mother wasn’t a whore?

I’d rather get high instead of laid most days. Having sex is getting a little played out. I don’t even bust nuts most of the time. I’ve really conditioned myself into a corner. I can’t get pleasure from a girl that I might actually like, because all I can think about is strangling her or cutting her up with a knife.

:astonished: Someone’s been living the American Psycho dream too long. [-X

My mother didn’t hug me enough when I was little either. :smiley:

Um, I already gave it? I mean, it’s the sort of thing that doesn’t require any argument besides stating the obvious. Sex doesn’t improve lives beyond the lives of the people having sex (discounting highly secondary influences, like people who have sex being kinder to others as a result) (yes, those influences are highly secondary). Art, math, literature - those change things for everyone. The development of modern medicine changed things for everyone who could afford the treatments. Sure, such people may be few and far between when the technology initially comes about (although there are plenty of times where that isn’t the case), but they become widespread and readily available a relatively short while later.

A loooong time after people have been having sex, we have nothing to show for it except more people. A very short time after the invention of the vaccination, the transistor, and other such things, the lives of everyone on the planet have been positively transformed by such things.

I can’t understand how you’d argue this. At this point the burden is clearly on you to refuse my case.

Ridiculous. The “Day After Tomorrow” theory is one held by some scientists, and is a real possibility, but it’s a view held by the minority of scientists. More than likely, the effects of global warming will be devastating in a longer, more gradual scale, and more devastating to ecosystems than to the lives of individuals. Maybe we can’t eat fish anymore. That’s hardly devastating to humans. Even if in 200 years we’re in some horrible futuristic world where we can’t swim in oceans due to the ocean slick and bacterial buildup, that sucks a lot more for the ecosystems of earth than it does for us. And even if a nuke takes out a major US city, so what? Most of the rest of the world will be fine, even if that area will have to be evacuated and we have too many kids with leukemia. It would take a great deal to actually make our lives worse than how they were without modern medicine, agriculture, or technology. A GREAT deal. Much more than the best-predicted effects of global warming or even the destruction of the entire US.

Incredibly Generous? Man, how many high school girls have you used THAT on? Dude, if there is one thing sex is not, it is generous. Sex is highly selfish – and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that at all – but any components of generosity are secondary. How many times have you fucked an old ugly woman because you’re feeling generous and she’s lonely and hasn’t had sex in a long time? NEVER. NEVER. Sex is not generous, it is selfish.

Most art is selfish, too, although on average, unquestionably less so. The point is not whether it’s selfish or not; it’s which is better for the world.

Think about it this way: if either sex vanished as a means of pleasure, and people now reproduced “sexually” by, I don’t know, holding hands, whispering a chant, and that’s it (no pleasure involved), and we felt no attachment to what we had lost – but we got to keep art, science, and all the other worldly pleasures –

OR, we got to keep the pleasure of sex, but we lost art, math, science, medicine, etc., and had no emotional attachment to having lost THOSE things,

which society would be better off? Sure, I wouldn’t want to live in either one particularly - but the first society would still be happy (sex isn’t the ONLY thing making people happy), and they’d still be healthy, long-lived, etc. The second society would be CAVE MEN, or people not much better off.

Duh.

=D> =D> =D>

Well, I guess it means something. If the question is “what’s wrong with them” and the answer is “nothing of necessity!” that’s a pretty marginal “something”, though. It’s like asking “what’s wrong with killing?” and someone answering “nothing of necessity! It all depends on the circumstances!” Duh.

I agree that there are some misguided morons who think that there might be something wrong with these things of necessity, but surely ILP is more about furthering ideas than it is about worrying about morons. Why spend a second catering to that viewpoint? I haven’t seen anyone on this thread so far post that position seriously, so hopefully we can let that part go, agree that there’s nothing wrong with sex etc. of necessity, and continue to elaborate upon the circumstances in which such things are good or bad.

I completely agree.

Uh, inadequate? Man, I TOTALLY know what you mean. I’m an atheist, too, and every time I finish penetrating an 8-yr old, after having beaten her feisty mother into unconsciousness, I just feel that I’m missing a certain… something. Maybe if I bring the 8-yr old’s younger brother into the mix…

Grow a pair and say WRONG. Not wrong of necessity, but statistically wrong, the same way god doesn’t not-exist of necessity, but rather of high statistical likelihood.

The problem with Atheism is that it has no Moral Authority whatsoever. There is no such thing as “statistically-wrong”, ever, at all.

That’s a good point, Twiffy - people kill. In fact, people kill every day. I killed a chicken yesterday - in that I paid for someone else to kill a chicken. It’s a point that is lost on those who eat meat but are against hunting. And if the question is meaningless, then so is their moral position on hunting. So we can agree that it’s a slam-dunk - but surely you can agree that many people don’t get it.

And so it is with sex. To allow sex only among people who are married, and only for procreation, and then to spill all the concurrent propaganda that everything else is a sin, to preach abstinence as the only acceptable both control - this position begins at the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. Let’s not be blind to that. That Adam and Eve were naked and therefore ashamed.

There are millions of morons who believe this.

Kinda wish you would attribute your quotes - the first two in your last post are mine - the third is not.

There is no reason why anyone should feel “damaged” just because they have had sex. Except the reasons that we give them. There was a time when a moral proscription against sex outside of wedlock was a good idea - but now that effective birth control is readily available, that moral rule has no purpose. But it will linger for a long, long time.

Let’s be clever enough to see that, to see its historical worth, and that it is now outmoded.

Maybe then we can remove the double standard we have held for so long. Maybe we can stop seeing women as victims, and therefore stop calling them names just because they have sex.

Refering to the thread’s OP question; Nothing is wrong with the three as long as it not forced but, is consentual between adults and legal aged minors.