Is premarital sex immoral?

[Free Bird]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

I, err, wouldn't dwell on this argument for too long. One of the best things about human civilisation is the taming of the selfish gene. Although we are by nature a polygamous species, most societies have independently arrived on monogamy as a good rule of order - it's one of those artificial societal constructs that seem to be pretty adequate. Society would not change for the better if we obeyed our hormonal whims.

That said, there are lots of very very good reasons to fall back from treating premarital sex as immoral. Not least because almost all cultures have a significant double standard on what gender gets away with such shenanigans. Tbh a lot of neo-traditionalist sentiment strikes me as tryhard edginess, especially if people try and claim it's not for religious reasons.

Didn't even notice that I accidentally implied support for polygamy in my post LMFAO

[HillGoose]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

I, err, wouldn't dwell on this argument for too long. One of the best things about human civilisation is the taming of the selfish gene. Although we are by nature a polygamous species, most societies have independently arrived on monogamy as a good rule of order - it's one of those artificial societal constructs that seem to be pretty adequate. Society would not change for the better if we obeyed our hormonal whims.

That said, there are lots of very very good reasons to fall back from treating premarital sex as immoral. Not least because almost all cultures have a significant double standard on what gender gets away with such shenanigans. Tbh a lot of neo-traditionalist sentiment strikes me as tryhard edginess, especially if people try and claim it's not for religious reasons.

uhhh, I don't think humans are naturally polygamous. Humans are naturally jealous which means polygamy is like, in direct opposition to human nature.

i literally know a total of 0 people who seem to have any sort of polygamous desire. that's like, a weird ass hippie thing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is marriage moral? From which to then hand this presupposition? I mean, I love mine, but what's the difference between a long term relationship and a long term (or not so long term) relationship that's a matter of public record? I have good friends who are unmarried and have two kids together. I can't see how there can be anything remotely objectionable about that.

The difference is a commitment, made public as a surety, that is a promise between the partners and to any affected children about the stability of the familial relationship.   As society has moved to greater acceptance of divorce this assurance isn't as powerful as it once was, but it still makes a difference.

[afleitch]

Is marriage moral? From which to then hand this presupposition? I mean, I love mine, but what's the difference between a long term relationship and a long term (or not so long term) relationship that's a matter of public record? I have good friends who are unmarried and have two kids together. I can't see how there can be anything remotely objectionable about that.

The difference is a commitment, made public as a surety, that is a promise between the partners and to any affected children about the stability of the familial relationship.   As society has moved to greater acceptance of divorce this assurance isn't as powerful as it once was, but it still makes a difference.

It's a promise. But a promise isn't necessarily the truth. Sometimes it's a facade. Sometimes it is just a bit of paper. Trust me, should society regress I'm on that record as a gay man.

What I was getting at, is that the premise is that we can judge the morality of sexual acts on the basis of whether there's a signed contract or not. Which is essentially what a marriage is if you strip away the legal weight of it. I don't think it's a very strong hook on which to hang moral objectivity. Certainly not today.

Consent, not contract is what matters. We know this is the case because sex within marriage is not okay, in most cases legally, and certainly societally if it's not consensual. It would still be rape, though I am aware that some religious arguments are made that all sex within marriage is consensual, there is no such thing as marital rape etc.

So consent is important for a life long marriage as well as a one off encounter and it's the stronger arbiter of whether a sexual act is 'acceptable'. And marriage on it's own doesn't over ride that.

EDIT: To add, I think there's a problem is trying to make marriage really important in sexual relationships, interpersonal relationships and families because you end up inadvertently 'sh-tting' on a lot of people, couples and families who are outside of that and often doing better or at least no worth, by any measure than people inside of that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Psst...

There is no "meaning" or morality to acting on an instinctive, hormonally traceable urge and attempting to procreate your genes.

*hops out window*

I, err, wouldn't dwell on this argument for too long. One of the best things about human civilisation is the taming of the selfish gene. Although we are by nature a polygamous species, most societies have independently arrived on monogamy as a good rule of order - it's one of those artificial societal constructs that seem to be pretty adequate. Society would not change for the better if we obeyed our hormonal whims.

That said, there are lots of very very good reasons to fall back from treating premarital sex as immoral. Not least because almost all cultures have a significant double standard on what gender gets away with such shenanigans. Tbh a lot of neo-traditionalist sentiment strikes me as tryhard edginess, especially if people try and claim it's not for religious reasons.

uhhh, I don't think humans are naturally polygamous. Humans are naturally jealous which means polygamy is like, in direct opposition to human nature.

i literally know a total of 0 people who seem to have any sort of polygamous desire. that's like, a weird ass hippie thing.

We are descended from a species that practiced habitual polygamy. The rule of thumb is that if an animal has significant differences between the size of males and females, the species is more likely a polygamous one (and even "monogamous" species like most birds display habits like cheating and even prostitution). In humanity's case, it's normally speculated that early Homo species formed harems, where a single male would jealously guard his brood from rivals, much like gorillas or elephant seals; often killing off any infants produced from other males. (Contrasting with our closer ape cousins, who tend to engage in more of a free for all, which is why chimps have much larger testicles relative to their penises than humans or gorillas). The harem structure is less conducive to the functioning of society, which is why the practice has become less and less common (although it has persistently been practiced across human civilisation, especially amongst wealthy men).

[Technocracy Timmy]

We can test study examples of polygamy in chimps - our next closest species. Scientists found that the more power and money a male chimp accrued, the more likely they were to score hot babes and follow through with infidelity.

[Lechasseur]

"It's between consenting adults" works well as a legal argument, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see at least some posters restraining themselves to using it as one, but as a moral argument it's too presuppositional of a generally libertarian and individualistic moral framework to convince anybody who doesn't share those presuppositions.

I'm far from a libertarian, whether from a political or from a moral standpoint, but when it comes to the issue of premarital sex I still have trouble finding it immoral for this reason.

Immoral is a strong word. For someone who is not a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox and Orthoprax Jew - but I think Jews would overall be less likely to emphasize the immoral aspect of it-), consent just seems the most logical basis on which you can judge the morality of it.

Yeah, I mean, coming from a totally non-religious perspective, I don't understand how something could possibly be immoral if it has absolutely no negative impact on anyone or thing - as far as I am concerned, something is moral or not depending on the impact that it has; things aren't inherently moral or not by themselves.

If two people consent to pre-marital sex, even if it totally devoid of any emotional connection, it doesn't actually have any impact on anyone outside the couple, so I don't see what rationale there could be for it being immoral.

More than anything, the more partners you accumulate in your life (no double standards here, it's valid for both sexes), the harder it becomes to form the type of bond and committment that is needed in order to make a marriage work, and I really think that's one of the big reasons relationships (including marriage) generally don't survive long term these days.

[afleitch]

"It's between consenting adults" works well as a legal argument, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see at least some posters restraining themselves to using it as one, but as a moral argument it's too presuppositional of a generally libertarian and individualistic moral framework to convince anybody who doesn't share those presuppositions.

I'm far from a libertarian, whether from a political or from a moral standpoint, but when it comes to the issue of premarital sex I still have trouble finding it immoral for this reason.

Immoral is a strong word. For someone who is not a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox and Orthoprax Jew - but I think Jews would overall be less likely to emphasize the immoral aspect of it-), consent just seems the most logical basis on which you can judge the morality of it.

Yeah, I mean, coming from a totally non-religious perspective, I don't understand how something could possibly be immoral if it has absolutely no negative impact on anyone or thing - as far as I am concerned, something is moral or not depending on the impact that it has; things aren't inherently moral or not by themselves.

If two people consent to pre-marital sex, even if it totally devoid of any emotional connection, it doesn't actually have any impact on anyone outside the couple, so I don't see what rationale there could be for it being immoral.

More than anything, the more partners you accumulate in your life (no double standards here, it's valid for both sexes), the harder it becomes to form the type of bond and committment that is needed in order to make a marriage work, and I really think that's one of the big reasons relationships (including marriage) generally don't survive long term these days.

I've had over 80 sexual partners, a 5 year relationship then a 7 year marriage. If anything it makes for a stronger bond because it's based on experience.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

We can test study examples of polygamy in chimps - our next closest species. Scientists found that the more power and money a male chimp accrued, the more likely they were to score hot babes and follow through with infidelity.

The biggest "war" ever observed in chimpanzees (which hilariously Wikipedia uses its standard War Infobox for : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War ) is sometimes speculated to be partially caused by jealousy due to a serious lack of females. Of course, you can always follow the bonobos, who are less nymphomaniac than they are depicted, but are a lot more egalitarian in their sexual habits than chimps.

[MarkD]

Returning this discussion to a legal viewpoint, legislated sexual morality has even found its way into federal law. A little over 100 years ago Congress passed the Mann Act (1910), also known as the White Slave Traffic Act. In its original form, the law said, “Any person who shall knowingly transport, or cause to be transported … in interstate or foreign commerce … any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose … shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”

In 1913 a man named F. Drew Caminetti was brought to federal court on charges of having violated the Mann Act. The only thing that ended up being proven in court was that Caminetti had a live-in girlfriend in Sacremento, CA and they moved, together, to Reno, NV. They had a sexual relationship outside of marriage. They really admitted to this in court since they didn’t think it would get Caminetti convicted. But the jury found Caminetti guilty of transporting a woman across a state line for an “other immoral purpose.” The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which concluded, by 5 to 3, that Congress’s broad language of “other immoral purpose” should be interpreted as being as broad as it is plainly written, “when words are free from doubt they must be taken as the final expression of the legislative intent,” and Caminetti’s relationship was “immoral” within the meaning of the statutory language. (See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).)

I’m pretty sure that since then the federal language has been re-written.

For those of you who said “yes” in answer to the OP, what are your thoughts?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

For those of you who said “yes” in answer to the OP, what are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that believing that something is immoral does not automatically mean wanting it legally prohibited and punished as a federal sex crime (literally sane).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

For those of you who said “yes” in answer to the OP, what are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that believing that something is immoral does not automatically mean wanting it legally prohibited and punished as a federal sex crime (literally sane).

I'd even agree here.  I don't think premarital sex should be illegal, even though I find it deeply immoral.

[DC Al Fine]

For those of you who said “yes” in answer to the OP, what are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that believing that something is immoral does not automatically mean wanting it legally prohibited and punished as a federal sex crime (literally sane).

I'd even agree here.  I don't think premarital sex should be illegal, even though I find it deeply immoral.

Yes, immoral =/= illegal

[HillGoose]

I bet most of the people voting "Yes" are hypocrites lmao

[Antonio the Sixth]

I bet most of the people voting "Yes" are hypocrites lmao

wow maeks u think

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

[junior chįmp]

premarital sex is not immoral since its been here before Christianity

[DC Al Fine]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I bet most of the people voting "Yes" are hypocrites lmao

I suppose we should then declare pollution and gluttony to be of no moral value either.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So, outside of the potential to produce children out of wedlock, are there any secular grounds for declaring premarital sex immoral?

I've heard utilitarian arguments for it. That's still related to potential offspring, but its not exclusively about that. People with low partner counts (especially virgins) before the wedding night tend to have higher rates of marriage satisfaction and lower divorce rates, and there is some evidence that this isn't entirely driven by religion.

The notion that socially conservative moral views can't be arrived at without the assistance of religion seems rather dubious to me*. 21st century social liberalism tends to prioritize consent and indivdual choice over other other concerns, in a way that most moral systems, even secular ones like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative don't.

Coming from outside that moral system, the cultural blinders are fairly obvious. This view seems to take certain social liberal assumptions as self evident, when that is not the case.

* I don't know whether you actually believe that Crabcake, but it comes up enough on Atlas, that I thought it was worth dealing with either way.

I don't buy this notion by the way. For that matter, I don't buy the concept of "social conservatism" in general - I reject the two axes model of political affiliation as a cartoonish abstraction that is no better (imho slightly worse) than the left-right dichotomy of old. The reason I specifically asked for secular arguments is that I don't personally have a religious framework to my views. Don't mind if people do, but if I'm going to be seriously debating about whether something is immoral, it will be a very short debate unless I can find an argument that stands outside of religious law.

I also don't buy that utilitarian argument. Partially because in general I dislike utilitarian reasoning, which often strikes me as arbitrary and subjective judgements that masquerade as hard mathematical reasoning. But also I find it treating people as representatives of a statistical data set is very dark, when you break things down. For example, there is evidence that mixed racial marriages break down at a higher rate than marriages between the same race. Does that make miscegenation immoral?

[Tartarus Sauce]

No, and virtually every argument against it makes my eyes glaze over.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

No consensual sex is immoral, so long as it's not pedophilia.


Humans are sexual creatures by nature, and to try and deny this and coerce others into being celibate in the name of religion is quite frankly bizarre and disturbing.


I would go so far as to say that if Christ existed as a human man, he likely had sex of some kind outside of marriage, as it is really human nature

[Antonio the Sixth]

No consensual sex is immoral, so long as it's not pedophilia.


Humans are sexual creatures by nature, and to try and deny this and coerce others into being celibate in the name of religion is quite frankly bizarre and disturbing.


I would go so far as to say that if Christ existed as a human man, he likely had sex of some kind outside of marriage, as it is really human nature

ayy lmao

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No consensual sex is immoral, so long as it's not pedophilia.


Humans are sexual creatures by nature, and to try and deny this and coerce others into being celibate in the name of religion is quite frankly bizarre and disturbing.


I would go so far as to say that if Christ existed as a human man, he likely had sex of some kind outside of marriage, as it is really human nature

No consensual economic act is immoral.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No consensual sex is immoral, so long as it's not pedophilia.


Humans are sexual creatures by nature, and to try and deny this and coerce others into being celibate in the name of religion is quite frankly bizarre and disturbing.


I would go so far as to say that if Christ existed as a human man, he likely had sex of some kind outside of marriage, as it is really human nature

No consensual economic act is immoral.

I mean, given his username, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually believed that.