In general it is much more likely that a given human will tend to have a greater respect and concern for a person they have an emotional connection to and will interact with regularly than a nameless stranger.
Well I don't believe that at all. Often friends and family treat those they know with much less respect than they would total strangers. There may be more concern for whether something happens to a friend than a stranger, but that is different than how one treats (respect wise) those they know.
Probably.
Perhaps you should unpack that. That was after all what I said was more to the point. Why would people taught to respect others and have personal responsibility be less likely to engage in casual sex?
How is such an assertion any different than the moral wishful thinking of "teaching abstinence will lead to less sexually transmitted diseases"?
How can you have much regard for someone if you don't know them very well, or at all?
I find that a very sad statement. You don't have much regard for those you don't know?
How can you be responsible regarding your own sexual health if you don't know your partner well enough to have any idea if you can trust that they will also be responsible?
Oh its certainly better to know that another is responsible. You can do that without getting to know another person's name and cv. But that is besides the point. If one is responsible for one's own health, it doesn't matter much how responsible the other is. You know you can have sex with others in ways that pose less risk than eating at a restaurant right?
How can you be responsible for your general health if you don't know the food preparer/seller well enough to have any idea that they will also be responsible?
Germs are traded every day in every way. You have seem to have some unusual idea sex is more dangerous than other human social activities.
Part of having all the information to make an informed descision about having sex with another person must include getting to know one's potential partner well enough to be able to reasonably conclude that they are going to be respectful and responsible.
Exactly how much info is that? How "well" does that require someone get to know another? And why does one's own responsibility not effect how much one really needs to know about another?
In fact, I don't think I would count these groups as casual at all because everyone agrees ahead of time to adhere to certain standards, and the purpose of getting together is to have sex. It's planned.
Please don't try and discuss things you don't know. Such venues can be strict or not, but in no way differs from what you can find anywhere else. In the end the sex is not planned, and it most certainly is casual sex.
Besides which there are open sex venues which are not just for swinging "couples".
Casual sex does not, by definition, contribute to deep emotional connection between people. It can't, otherwise it wouldn't be casual anymore.
Notice the equivocation you make. Above you say deep emotional connection, then move on to say...
But casual sex lacks deep emotional commitment between the participants, and that is what many people often say is a benefit of sex, and a reason to engage in it, at least some of the time.
Connection =/= commitment. I agree casual sex does not lead to commitment, but it most certainly can lead to connection. As an analogy one can have great connection to a restaurant where one had a fantastic experience, without feeling one has to eat there for the rest of one's life.
I disagree that commitment is a benefit of sex and a reason to engage in it. If that one's reason one is seriously barking up the wrong tree. Commitment comes from so much more and may be totally devoid of sex.
Because it implies that you find emotional involvement inconvenient or undesireable.
Why? The statement I made was in a specific context. I was not speaking about how I felt about relationships. Time to turn in your cracker jack diploma.
So, since sex can and does promote emotional bonding and can and does have a large impact on many people's lives, we should let kids know that there is an emotional aspect to sex.
Sure, just not the one you pretend there is. Although to be sure I do believe that instruction should be to explain there are many other aspects to sex than just the physical ones, and that they should talk to their parents about these issues.
When did I say we should be teaching that?
Your point to the other poster was that teaching kids respect and responsibility would lead to that, and that was a good thing. Thus it seems you were suggesting that they would be taught monogamy etc as part and parcel to r and r, because unless it was I don't see how r and r leads to monogamy etc.
the only two possibilities?
I didn't say those were the only possibilities. I was for keeping such things out of discussion altogether for sex education. I just didn't see where r and r favored one over the other unless one presupposed such a thing, or taught it as an assumption.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2