Is casual sex unnatural?

[Moonglow]

I do miss casual sex, but at my age, you have to make an appointment...

 

[cnm]

Thoughts?

How can a person so unobservant manage to find his keyboard?

 

[IndependantAce]

From what I know humans are designed by nature to remain attached to their partners indefinitely (with the possible exception of life changing events)...... Thoughts?

What makes you think that?

Human males by nature are designed to want sex. If we are able to have sex without permanent attachments, many of us do- I certainly did for many years before I found my wonderful wife.

Humans are designed to live as hunter-gatherers (civilization itself is unnatural for the record); casual sex as exists today is the result of high populations being cramped into small areas.

However I believe humans are biologically designed to be attached to their sex partner indefinitely, so the "hook up culture" is therefore a slight deviation from nature.

As a whole it also creates societal debt which the taxpayer is forced to pay for (when it results in unplanned pregnancies).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From what I know humans are designed by nature to remain attached to their partners indefinitely (with the possible exception of life changing events)...... Thoughts?

What makes you think that?

Human males by nature are designed to want sex. If we are able to have sex without permanent attachments, many of us do- I certainly did for many years before I found my wonderful wife.

Humans are designed to live as hunter-gatherers (civilization itself is unnatural for the record); casual sex as exists today is the result of high populations being cramped into small areas.

However I believe humans are biologically designed to be attached to their sex partner indefinitely, so the "hook up culture" is therefore a slight deviation from nature.

As a whole it also creates societal debt which the taxpayer is forced to pay for (when it results in unplanned pregnancies).

You’re at liberty to think and believe what you want, with the understanding that you’re wrong.

 

[IndependantAce]

"One could also make an arguemnt against porn or adult entertainment being protected speech (e.x. many states have obscenity laws on the books and I doubt obscenity is what the Founders had in mind as protected speech)."

And here you exhibit your ignorance of the law.

Pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not – as they are not the same thing.

I have my doubts the founders had modern adult industry in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment, in fact I think that much of what passes as "free speech" today would be better off being censored.

 

[IndependantAce]

From what I know humans are designed by nature to remain attached to their partners indefinitely (with the possible exception of life changing events).

In ancient societies of small populations fidelity was maintained easier, however modern high population societies have disturbed this natural order by cramming large populations of people into small densities where the temptation is much more prevalent.

Likewise sex has been turned in to a capitalist consumer commodity by the pornographic and adult industries which are a disturbance of natural order (e.x. in ancient societies sex and access to sexual entertaiment such as porn and strip clubs wouldn't have been readily available except to those men who proved themselves virtuous in work or in combat, while today it is easily available to all even those who haven't proven themselves a worthy husband or father).

So from what I can tell the natural state of man is that of fidelity, which seems to tie in well with the story of Adam and Eve; modern society has again disturbed the natural order, which is of course to blame now for the rise in abortions, single parent households, and children in foster care. Thoughts?

No, I doubt humans are designed to stay with their partners for life.

Men certainly aren't. Women might be, and they're the force that keeps things together.

Men in ancient times had multiple wives, however casual sex, having sex with a woman which one doesn't plan on taking responsibility for (or vice versa) is different.

 

[frigidweirdo]

From what I know humans are designed by nature to remain attached to their partners indefinitely (with the possible exception of life changing events).

In ancient societies of small populations fidelity was maintained easier, however modern high population societies have disturbed this natural order by cramming large populations of people into small densities where the temptation is much more prevalent.

Likewise sex has been turned in to a capitalist consumer commodity by the pornographic and adult industries which are a disturbance of natural order (e.x. in ancient societies sex and access to sexual entertaiment such as porn and strip clubs wouldn't have been readily available except to those men who proved themselves virtuous in work or in combat, while today it is easily available to all even those who haven't proven themselves a worthy husband or father).

So from what I can tell the natural state of man is that of fidelity, which seems to tie in well with the story of Adam and Eve; modern society has again disturbed the natural order, which is of course to blame now for the rise in abortions, single parent households, and children in foster care. Thoughts?

No, I doubt humans are designed to stay with their partners for life.

Men certainly aren't. Women might be, and they're the force that keeps things together.

Men in ancient times had multiple wives, however casual sex, having sex with a woman which one doesn't plan on taking responsibility for (or vice versa) is different.

So how often did men in ancient times have casual sex?

How often did it happen when humans were in primitive tribes and how often when humans were in a more complex structure?

 

[IndependantAce]

From what I know humans are designed by nature to remain attached to their partners indefinitely (with the possible exception of life changing events).

In ancient societies of small populations fidelity was maintained easier, however modern high population societies have disturbed this natural order by cramming large populations of people into small densities where the temptation is much more prevalent.

Likewise sex has been turned in to a capitalist consumer commodity by the pornographic and adult industries which are a disturbance of natural order (e.x. in ancient societies sex and access to sexual entertaiment such as porn and strip clubs wouldn't have been readily available except to those men who proved themselves virtuous in work or in combat, while today it is easily available to all even those who haven't proven themselves a worthy husband or father).

So from what I can tell the natural state of man is that of fidelity, which seems to tie in well with the story of Adam and Eve; modern society has again disturbed the natural order, which is of course to blame now for the rise in abortions, single parent households, and children in foster care. Thoughts?

No, I doubt humans are designed to stay with their partners for life.

Men certainly aren't. Women might be, and they're the force that keeps things together.

Men in ancient times had multiple wives, however casual sex, having sex with a woman which one doesn't plan on taking responsibility for (or vice versa) is different.

So how often did men in ancient times have casual sex?

How often did it happen when humans were in primitive tribes and how often when humans were in a more complex structure?

In ancient tribes there was more of a natural order which prevented men from sleeping with women and abandoning the woman or the unborn child; since tribes were small and everyone would have known each other it was harder for him to get away with it; today however there's no natural method to prevent men fathering children and abandoning them for the taxpayer to support.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have my doubts the founders had modern adult industry in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment, in fact I think that much of what passes as "free speech" today would be better off being censored.

Marriage As Sacrament | For Your Marriage

Marriage As Sacrament

All seven sacraments were instituted by Christ ...

Like the other six sacraments of the Church, marriage is a sign or symbol which reveals the Lord Jesus and through which his divine life and love are communicated.

In a sacramental marriage, God’s love becomes present to the spouses in their total union and also flows through them to their family and community. By their permanent, faithful and exclusive giving to each other, symbolized in sexual intercourse, the couple reveals something of God’s unconditional love.

what was natural became by your standards unnaturally restrictive and a tool of oppression, zealot.



Ace: in fact I think that much of what passes as "free speech" today would be better off being censored.

too bad for you Ace, the church was not invited to the convention ...


.

 

[Agit8r]

Humans and apes are the only species that fuck for fun. The rest do it to procreate.

 

[hobelim]

So how often did men in ancient times have casual sex?

Whenever they went to war with another tribe they were allowed to take some booty.

Thats why war is so alluring to many young men who are in the midst of puberty.

 

[DGS49]

There is nothing in "human nature" that favors monogamy. In fact, men are irredeemably impelled to copulate with any female they find sexually attractive long after their actual fertility has declined to near zero. (I've been faithfully married for 40+ years, but I would fuck Scarlett Johansen in a heartbeat, given the opportunity to do so). Monogamy is purely cultural, and seldom universal.

Because mankind is cogent and not ruled by its "natural" instincts, we have developed cultural rules that promote the sort of society we want to have. Sometimes it mandates monogamy, sometime polygamy, but culture seldom condones "casual sex."

Casual sex has been made socially acceptable by the advent of reliable artificial birth control, and to a lesser extent, the general availability of abortion. If every sex act potentially resulted in a child, then you can make a large wager that casual sex would STILL be considered the conduct of low-life's and scoundrels.

Consider the "man" who indiscriminately impregnated women with babies which (whom) he had neither the resources nor the intention of supporting in any way. What a fucking plague on humanity.

I will now forcefully restrain myself from typing a "racist" conclusion.