cancel2 2022
Canceled
You do surprise me, I guess you won't be applying for brothel quality control job then.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=24154"]And you think that your job stinks - Just Plain Politics![/ame]
Is unmarried sex always harmfull?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You do surprise me, I guess you won't be applying for brothel quality control job then.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=24154"]And you think that your job stinks - Just Plain Politics![/ame]
I do?
So as technology progresses and the "risk" goes down, that will make casual sex more acceptable....?
Anyway, the answer to your original question would be "no" it isn't "always harmful", it is however at high risk of causing harm and, therefore according to my beliefs, wrong.
That you know of, the reality is nobody has to tell you, yet the "harm" would still be real. You can tell yourself you "never" caused such harm, but you will never know if you ever caused an unwanted pregnancy.
Canceled.LTroll.10
Banned
I'd agree that the risk of unwanted pregnancy is nonexistent with the kind of sex we prefer in Yadkin Valley, but the STDs and car crashes are another story.
Im fairly sure Id know... We cant all know what we leave behind.
Sex is not the most likely thing to cause damage that most of us do on a daily basis.
I had not noticed that you raised the issue of STDs before. If someone wants to risk harm to themselves, I really don't care. But, you can still take precautions that would reduce your harm to what I consider acceptable levels. It is up to the individual to weigh that risk/reward.
Talk about a strawman, we were not simply discussing unplanned pregnancy. That happens all the time inside of marriages. I do not really see how that is a negative at all.
You were arguing that it leads to abortion or a one parent household. There is no direct causal relationship (does not mean there is no causal relationship) between sex (in marriage or outside of it) and those things. There are other actions/choices that directly cause those things to happen.
The causal relationship that does exist, applies to sex in general and not specifically to out of wedlock sex or casual sex.
Why is it okay for married people to accept the risk?
Who said that it is the only thing that does? That is disingenuous.
You do not see how an unplanned pregnancy could possibly be more of a negative after casual sex? Now you are also being disingenuous.
Seriously, did you even read my opening post? Your question about married couples was answered then. You are again providing an example of how humans will do or say anything in order to justify the action they want to take rather than the one they know would be right.
How? Both an abortion and single parent are possible after conception within a marriage.
It was not. You did not mention sex inside a marriage at all.
And married couples are doing the same thing. They risk the same end result. I was conceived in marriage but raised in a single parent home.
You might argue the risk is lower. But then you are going to have to argue what risk level is acceptable.
I don't have any numbers. But, again I would guess abortion or single parent home is less likely to happen to a fetus/child conceived in marriage. But, I would also guess that it is less likely to happen during casual sex where protection was used than unprotected sex between a married couple.
If that is true, then it would be nothing more than a rationalization for you to argue that casual sex using protection is wrong if you don't also condemn unprotected sex between married couples.
They are very much less likely.
It did.
Which again was my point, it is the risk you willingly put others into that you must measure.
Again this was covered. Unwanted children in marriages are much less likely to end in single parent families and/or deliberate death, it is a risk assessment. Which is less risk to others? Is it less likely you will infect your partner if you are in a committed relationship? Definitely. Is it less likely you will leave your child in a single-parent situation if you are in a committed relationship? Definitely.
Using such an assessment, and the reality that sex for pure enjoyment can lead to unwanted pregnancy, the reality is that the best place for such an activity is within the committed relationship. The absolute best option to reduce all risk is to have sex only for planned purposes and within a committed relationship. Of course, we all realize that humans like sex and will do their own risk assessment, however wrong it may be to risk the lives of others for our own entertainment.
Where?
The risk from protected sex is low and probably lower than unprotected sex inside a marriage.
However the risk is taken on solely for your own pleasure. The reason you risk another is as important as the risk itself.
Any risk to another solely for your own amusement and pleasure is wrong, and risk to a total innocent you were meant to protect even worse.
And you are wrong, it is always a higher risk to produce offspring to a single parent family or one that will be thrown into the trash when you are participating in casual uncommitted sex regardless of "protection"..
Your argument in this thread has been: "People might get pregnant when they didn't plan it when they are married so it is all the same!"
Mine has been: "Taking a greater risk to produce an unwanted child that will have only half of the parenting team that will give them a greater chance of success or one that will simply be thrown away because you wanted to feel good is a wrong."
You then ignore what I say to pretend that the risk is somehow equal. Your argument sucks here, even with your anecdotal evidence. The reality is any child, wanted or unwanted, has a greater chance at success and to even survive at all if it is created within a committed relationship. Frivolously putting others at greater risk because you want to feel good really badly isn't a "good"...
Noone said it was the only thing that does... You are being paranoid. I was merely pointing out some pratical comparisons. Most people drive places when they could walk or not go at all. Most people dirve places for pleasure, driving can have deadly consiquences, especally if the proper precautions are not taken!
Jarod is in true lawyer mode on this thread. Anyone here watch NCIS? I hate the new character (lady lawyer) who is always interfering with Gibbs and the team. I wish they'd turn Ziva loose on her.
Except your argument was, "This isn't the only thing that is like that..."
So, you actually did use it as an "argument"...
And again, putting others at greater risk solely for your amusement would be wrong. It isn't that hard to figure out, Jarod.
Actually, there is benefit to society if you are going to the movies, this creates jobs, etc. Your attempt to minimalize and purposefully "misunderstand" what was said is a weak attempt at pretense.
You spoke about driving just to drive. Do the benefits of driving around and putting others at risk outweigh the risk? It's possible that it does. Let's consider. You use gasoline, this extends into the economy... You are using a car, you'll have to get it maintained, more economical advantage...
It's possible that the benefits outweigh the risk. First ask who you are putting at risk, could they decide for themselves if the risk was worth it? Will that risk extend further? For example. If you unknowingly pass on an STD what further risk are you putting strangers in? What if you knowingly pass it on? Which was worse? Are you possibly putting people at risk that have no option, you are forcing risk upon them? While adult participants in casual sex can always decide to risk themselves, it is risking another who cannot take on such responsibility that makes it so one should more carefully consider their actions.