Guest VorJack Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 This continuing debate over the sale of Plan B has me wondering. One side says that Plan B will increase promiscuity. The other side is saying that promiscuity is likely inevitable, better to remove its harmful effects and decrease abortions. There's something here that's confusing me. Let me ask a question after setting some boundaries for the discussion. Assume that we could completely and perfectly separate sex from reproduction, in other words sex would only cause pregnancy if both partners agreed on it. Second, assume that STDs and so forth were no longer with us. (I recognize that these are huge assumptions, but I'm trying to dig down to something basic here and I need to clear everything out of the way to get to it.) With these two assumptions in mind, would you care about promiscuity? Would sex outside of marriage still be considered wrong? Or would consensual sex become a morally neutral thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Assume that we could completely and perfectly separate sex from reproduction, in other words sex would only cause pregnancy if both partners agreed on it. Um... Why is this an assumption? This is reality as far as I'm concerned. If you aren't responsible enough to ensure non-reproduction, then you have no business having sex. Period. You aren't mature enough to handle the responsibility. There are so many birth control methods, and both partners need to take responsibility. Just because 'she's on the pill', doesn't mean a man who doesn't want to be a daddy has any business whatsoever shirking condom duty. You want heightened pleasure? There are products for that. Get your girl to go to an Essence of Romance party and tell her to buy some stuff. There are so many ways to get off without sexual intercourse, and so many birth control methods available for sexual intercourse, there is no excuse for unplanned pregnancies. If a guy can't do basic sexual responsibility, then he can go have fun with his own hand, because that is what I'd rather do with mine. With these two assumptions in mind, would you care about promiscuity? Your assumptions really had nothing to do with the question. And I would only care about the promiscuity of my partner if he was being so outside of my bed without a joint agreement that we would see and sleep with other people. Would sex outside of marriage still be considered wrong? Yes. Unless it is an 'open' marital arrangement (preferrably in writing). Otherwise sex outside marriage would still be wrong. And it's not about pregnancy or STDS anyway regarding that. It's about sharing something intimate and private that the two of you share....with a stranger. It's like trespassing. Or would consensual sex become a morally neutral thing? What does this have to do with marriage? Consentual sex between unmarried adults IS morally neutral. It's really no one's business what goes on in someone else's bed... unless one of those people are married. Then it's the spouse's business too even and including 'open' arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greygirl Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 I already consider it morally neutral. There are plenty of things that people do that carry some level of risk, and we don't consider anyone "immoral" for doing those things. Yes, sex has an emotional component for most people, unlike skydiving, whitewater rafting, and rock climbing, but the fact remains that these are all things people do for fun that could kill you if you're not careful. You just take reasonble precautions and accept that you might have to deal with some consequences. What two (or more) consenting adults choose to do privately is their business, and I see no reason to stigmatize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolyn the Red Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 This continuing debate over the sale of Plan B has me wondering. One side says that Plan B will increase promiscuity. The other side is saying that promiscuity is likely inevitable, better to remove its harmful effects and decrease abortions. There's something here that's confusing me. Let me ask a question after setting some boundaries for the discussion. Assume that we could completely and perfectly separate sex from reproduction, in other words sex would only cause pregnancy if both partners agreed on it. Second, assume that STDs and so forth were no longer with us. (I recognize that these are huge assumptions, but I'm trying to dig down to something basic here and I need to clear everything out of the way to get to it.) With these two assumptions in mind, would you care about promiscuity? Would sex outside of marriage still be considered wrong? Or would consensual sex become a morally neutral thing? Magic, 100% certain yet 100% reversible birth control for both men and women which doesn't have undesired side effects and can't be forgotten in the heat of passion would be a wonderful creation. I don't think anyone should be forced into parenthood. As long is the sex is between consenting adults, I would view it as morally neutral even now. I've never been a big fan of extreme promiscuity or casual sex, but I think people have every right to do things I don't approve of. I'm with Pierre Trudeau, the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightley Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 What's wrong with promiscuity? Why should I care what someone does with their body and sex partner(s)? And why are people trying to tell others what to take or not take, especially where birth control is regarded. Its nobody's business but theirs, end of story. Concerning the latter questions. If in a hypothetical world we didn't have to worry about pregnancies and stds and the like, then that still wouldn't be any of my business. I care about what I do, not what others do. I don't think sex outside of marriage is "wrong" and that marriage is the only "right" way to go. I do what works for me, and people should do what works for them. I hate how people, especially the conservative right thinks that women need to be virtuous and that enjoying their sexuality makes them sluts. No wonder women screw around and go and get vaginoplasty, then they get married to men who think their marrying "pure" women. Well fuck that. I'm not interested in being a saint and I wish people would stop judging others for their choices. Sorry to have rambled there but what works for one person, may not work for others and I wish people would stop telling each other what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 I don't think all of society would vieew sex as a morally neutral activity even then, and would rail against those advances. In a way, people are mistaking strong emotions and feelings with sacredness, it appears. As for me, I consider consensual sex morally neutral. And about the rant about unplanned pregnancies with things like the pill and condoms available. Sometimes shit happens, condoms do break (or religious nutters perforate them), and I've seen the pill fail on a couple of occasions before (people do forget). Having something like Plan B around is still a good idea. That being said, I do agree that the only way birth control is at all effective is if it is used in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts