Booty Calling

[KingZ]

Not to my moral standards it doesn't. Well, I guess that if they're both over 40, then it makes no difference.

What is it with these arbitrary ages? What if one is 32 and 37? Where do you draw the line?

Well, as long as the used don't actually have feelings for the user, then if it works for both of them, I don't see the problem. I still think the user isn't responsible for the used's poor decision making. Although if the user is aware that the used hopes for something more, then it does make them an as*hole (still not responsible, just kind of a bad person).

Lack of responsibility does not necessarily guarantee moral clarity. For example: a crack dealer is not responsible for a customer's health. However, dealing crack is morally reprehensible.

Sorry, but you aren't really making a case, here. While it may not be objectively immoral (I do think the existence of objective morality is provable) to have casual sex, I have yet to be presented with a situation where it isn't, at the very least, inadvisable.


You know, I don't mind sharing the seat...

[searock]

Okay, I'll be more specific with the age thing. Considering adults (>18), people up to 32 years old should stick to people that are at most 3 years younger than themselves. People in the 33-40 age range should stick to people in their 30s or older. Someone older than 40 should stick to the over 35-s. Other than that I'm too young to say, I can't tell how large the difference in maturity is for people in their late 30s vs people in their late 40s and so on.

I agree with the fact that lack of responsibility is not the same as moral clarity. However, in this case, there is a chance that the used person will not actually be harmed - maybe s/he is really ok with the arrangement, at least up to some moment in time (until that moment, s/he won't even be "used" per se, as s/he would be 100% ok with it... it would be simply an arrangement between consenting adults). As soon as the user realizes that the used is developing feelings for them, they can stop seeing them for casual sex. In such a situation, I don't think the user is to be deemed responsible or even morally wrong. If, on the other hand, the user is aware that the used is developing feelings (or has them already and hopes to "f*ck them into loving them"), then if they continue to have sex with them they will still not be responsible, but they are morally wrong.

It's a risky arrangement, and I do agree that in most cases at least one of the two persons will develop feelings for the other. It's why I have little sympathy for those who willingly enter such an arrangement. What the hell do they expect? Of course they will end up getting hurt, or hurting the other person. I think if someone is naive enough to enter such an arrangement, they need to actually go through with it, in order to learn that they should not do it again.

[KingZ]

Okay, I'll be more specific with the age thing. Considering adults (>18), people up to 32 years old should stick to people that are at most 3 years younger than themselves. People in the 33-40 age range should stick to people in their 30s or older. Someone older than 40 should stick to the over 35-s. Other than that I'm too young to say, I can't tell how large the difference in maturity is for people in their late 30s vs people in their late 40s and so on.

I disagree. I wrote a function to determine actual age bounds:

I agree with the fact that lack of responsibility is not the same as moral clarity. However, in this case, there is a chance that the used person will not actually be harmed - maybe s/he is really ok with the arrangement, at least up to some moment in time (until that moment, s/he won't even be "used" per se, as s/he would be 100% ok with it... it would be simply an arrangement between consenting adults). As soon as the user realizes that the used is developing feelings for them, they can stop seeing them for casual sex.

In such a situation, I don't think the user is to be deemed responsible or even morally wrong. If, on the other hand, the user is aware that the used is developing feelings (or has them already and hopes to "f*ck them into loving them"), then if they continue to have sex with them they will still not be responsible, but they are morally wrong.

It's a risky arrangement, and I do agree that in most cases at least one of the two persons will develop feelings for the other.

In order for your situation to come up, this would have to be executed perfectly. Two consenting adults would have to: a) have intercourse; b) clarify that a relationship is not at all desired, at the risk of losing sexual benefits; c) establish mutual trust as friends that wouldn't be corrupted for the duration of the arrangement; d) be mature enough to not let emotions arise (something that is exceptionally difficult, even among mature adults). If emotions did arise, they would both need to be strong enough to discontinue an otherwise pleasurable arrangement.

The amount of work involved in this, all for an orgasm? Especially considering we've agreed repeatedly on the "orgasm" matter.

Do you see that this is so unlikely to ever happen, and the risk-reward benefit is so small, that you cannot reasonably say, "oh, they're consenting adults, it's fine"?

It's why I have little sympathy for those who willingly enter such an arrangement. What the hell do they expect? Of course they will end up getting hurt, or hurting the other person. I think if someone is naive enough to enter such an arrangement, they need to actually go through with it, in order to learn that they should not do it again.

You sound like an American Republican.

[searock]

Hm, I do agree with the first condition, although I don't think people younger than 14 should be having sex at all, I'm assuming you meant just "dating" or something, and I would extend it to x≤18, whereas as I said I'm too young to tell with regards to the third condition. As for the intermediate range, I guess I've seen worse, but I still don't agree with it. I don't think that a 19 year old should have sex with a 15 year old, a 25 year old with a barely-20 year old, a 30 year old with a 22 year old or a 34 year old with a 24 year old (I'm 24 now, and ew), and so on. I can't really say for people older than 30 (them being the younger person), but I still find it kind of creepy that a 45 year old could have sex with a 31 year old. I guess I'll know when I get there.

Something that would work for me would be

x-1 . . . . . . x≤18
4.2/3 x^(6/7) . . . . . . 18<x≤70
x-20 . . . . . . . x>70

although I'm just guessing for the older peeps. We are wasting way too much time on this XD.

Yeah, it's a pretty improbable situation. I still don't think the user would be responsible, although we agree that they would be morally wrong in the case of an emotional attachment on the used's part (which you think is pretty much always going to happen).

LOL, I guess I'm more like those guys than I thought...

[KingZ]

x-1 . . . . . . x≤18
4.2/3 x^(6/7) . . . . . . 18<x≤70
x-20 . . . . . . . x>70

Really? So it would be creepy for a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old to have sex?

4.2/3... lol. Physicists and the like have no respect for elegance.

Yeah, it's a pretty improbable situation. I still don't think the user would be responsible, although we agree that they would be morally wrong in the case of an emotional attachment on the used's part (which you think is pretty much always going to happen).

OK, so you agree that it's improbable, you agree that lack of responsibility does not guarantee moral clarity, you agree that it becomes immoral if the used develops an emotional response... I think we're done here.

Any further disagreement on your part makes you a silly little girl.

[searock]

Yeah, I do think it would be creepy if an 18 year old and a 16 year old had sex. The maturity difference is just too large at such young ages.

OK, so you agree that it's improbable, you agree that lack of responsibility does not guarantee moral clarity, you agree that it becomes immoral if the used develops an emotional response...

Well yes, that's what I've been saying since the start :-).

[KingZ]

God, this woman...

someone else deal with her.

[searock]

Haha, King, I think we actually agree! We just disagree on what they should do... the republican thing.

[KingZ]

Haha, King, I think we actually agree! We just disagree on what they should do... the republican thing.

I haven't convinced you yet that casual sex is immoral? If not, I will provide a proof.

[searock]

Ok, go ahead .

[KingZ]

Cute little hint of insolence. I'll humor you anyway, and try to be as brief as possible.

Basic, obvious assumptions:

1. The best possible world is the world with the most happiness and welfare.
2. The worst possible world is the world with the most amount of misery and pain. This is the opposite of the one described above.

If you disagree, then I was totally off with my guess (physics background) and you're some kind of poet/linguist/retard or something. Although, maybe my guess was wrong anyway. Never thought someone with a physics background would use the word "accuracy" and expect to not be laughed at.

Iff the assumptions are true, then any act which brings us closer to the worst possible world is considered immoral. Any act which brings us closer to the first world would be considered moral. An act can be considered moral or immoral if you weigh the gains vs. the loss. This is obvious. The difficulty arises in figuring out the value of the gain/loss to figure if one outweighs the other.

Taking the above, any act that could bring 51% harm, and 49% help, would still be considered immoral until it was reversed.

If casual sex is more likely than not to cause harm (we agreed in previous posts), and the gain is minimal (we also agreed in previous posts), then it is immoral.

Frankly, I don't see why this had to be broken down.

[searock]

Nah I wasn't trying to be insolent, really :-). I don't know how to not make it sound as if I'm doing that, though D:.

I get your reasoning, it's logical, it makes sense. It's just a different way of defining morality, compared to mine. To me, morality is what each individual "feels that is right". It's a very subjective thing - kantian in this sense. Basically, as long as someone is sincerely convinced that they aren't doing anything wrong, then they aren't morally wrong. So in this context, actions aren't morally right or wrong, only persons are. It's just my view on it.

When I say that I think that something is "right" or "wrong", I mean that I think it is right or wrong according to what I personally feel is right or wrong. My "moral compass" generally follows the rules you described above (and I think most people's does as well, so in most cases the two definitions ultimately coincide).

In this case, I think the OP is very much aware that using another person for sex while that person actually wants something more than sex is wrong, in the sense that she "feels that it's wrong". So if she goes ahead and does it anyway, she (not the casual sex per se) is morally wrong.

According to your definition, yes, casual sex is morally wrong, but only if you consider it as a sum of both the "wrong" kind (the one in which at least one person is getting hurt) and the "right" kind (the one in which no one is getting hurt): the "wrong" kind has a higher chance of happening, so overall one could say that casual sex is "more" wrong than right.

[Wakeup]

What was that question again, OP? O.O

[KingZ]

I get your reasoning, it's logical, it makes sense. It's just a different way of defining morality, compared to mine. To me, morality is what each individual "feels that is right". It's a very subjective thing - kantian in this sense.

I think this is common among atheists and those types. It's easier to defend "subjectivity" when something is complex; e.g., a particular piece of music can't be objectively compared with another because the beauty of music is subjective (which is categorically false).

Basically, as long as someone is sincerely convinced that they aren't doing anything wrong, then they aren't morally wrong.

If a person rapes another person, then clearly, it's morally wrong. If an animal rapes another animal, it can't be reasonably considered "wrong" because the thing committing the act is incapable. If a mentally retarded person (or a physicist) commits a similar act, it's tragic, but the person is also incapable.

If, however, a person is capable, but still thinks that a particular act's help outweighs its harm, even though the harm in actuality does outweigh the help, then it's still immoral. For example: jihadists are convinced that they are conducting God's will. Hijacking planes is still immoral.

According to your definition, yes, casual sex is morally wrong, but only if you consider it as a sum of both the "wrong" kind (the one in which at least one person is getting hurt) and the "right" kind (the one in which no one is getting hurt): the "wrong" kind has a higher chance of happening, so overall one could say that casual sex is "more" wrong than right.

I'm going to have loveadmin change your name to seawrong.

It's impossible to differentiate between the "good" casual sex and the "bad" casual sex. Most casual sex is bad, so if you take the risk repeatedly, more harm will be done than good. Therefore, casual sex is immoral.

[searock]

I think this is common among atheists and those types. It's easier to defend "subjectivity" when something is complex; e.g., a particular piece of music can't be objectively compared with another because the beauty of music is subjective (which is categorically false).

Eh, it's just how I see it. I do think there are some things that are impossible to classify objectively - or that are too difficult to classify objectively, same thing from my point of view.

If a person rapes another person, then clearly, it's morally wrong. If an animal rapes another animal, it can't be reasonably considered "wrong" because the thing committing the act is incapable. If a mentally retarded person (or a physicist) commits a similar act, it's tragic, but the person is also incapable.

Again, I don't think an action is morally wrong per se, it's just an action that may or may not be harmful to someone else (or to the "greater order" or whatever). What can be morally wrong or right are persons, IMO.

If, however, a person is capable, but still thinks that a particular act's help outweighs its harm, even though the harm in actuality does outweigh the help, then it's still immoral. For example: jihadists are convinced that they are conducting God's will. Hijacking planes is still immoral.

I actually think that, while the act itself is terrible and brings only harm, the persons that are doing it aren't morally wrong, provided that they are firmly convinced that it serves the "greater good" (and they don't just want to prove they have the bigger c*ck or something).

It's impossible to differentiate between the "good" casual sex and the "bad" casual sex. Most casual sex is bad, so if you take the risk repeatedly, more harm will be done than good. Therefore, casual sex is immoral.

Statistically, you are correct: there is a much higher chance of casual sex being "wrong" (in the sense that at least one person is hurt), so sure, we can consider casual sex to be (almost entirely) wrong, according to your definition. In those rare occasions in which no one is getting hurt, however... I really don't see how you can consider it morally wrong?