Is casual sex unnatural?

IndependantAce

VIP Member
Dec 1, 2014
379
40
68
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?
 
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).

Regulating casual sex would be hard, but since those who have children recklessly create a debt on society by being unable to provide for the offspring they make there might be a natural law case in favor of regulating it though this would be tough to balance with the rights of individuals.
 
Just cause Christ never got laid doesn't mean his Dad didn't inseminate a girl that was betrothed to another man...
 
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).

Regulating casual sex would be hard, but since those who have children recklessly create a debt on society by being unable to provide for the offspring they make there might be a natural law case in favor of regulating it though this would be tough to balance with the rights of individuals.
Ben Franklin was a notorious ladies man, well into his eighties..if you think our ancestors didn't commit adultery, get divorced , were bigamist or just plain left her at home for ever one day, you are sadly out of your mind...
 
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.
 
Regulating casual sex would be hard, but since those who have children recklessly create a debt on society by being unable to provide for the offspring they make there might be a natural law case in favor of regulating it though this would be tough to balance with the rights of individuals.

Why would you want the government to be telling you about what kind of sex you can have?
 
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).

Regulating casual sex would be hard, but since those who have children recklessly create a debt on society by being unable to provide for the offspring they make there might be a natural law case in favor of regulating it though this would be tough to balance with the rights of individuals.
Yes, one could make such an idiotic ‘argument’ as an authoritarian social conservative who seeks to compel conformity through force of law and increase the size and power of government at the expense of individual liberty.
 
Regulating casual sex would be hard, but since those who have children recklessly create a debt on society by being unable to provide for the offspring they make there might be a natural law case in favor of regulating it though this would be tough to balance with the rights of individuals.

Why would you want the government to be telling you about what kind of sex you can have?
Because one is an authoritarian social conservative frightened of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty.
 
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.
 
"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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top