Hacker News Reader

Comment by aliqot | Hacker News Reader

Because free sex makes disease and unwanted children, disease and unwanted children cause/suffer-from problems, disease and problems hurt society. This isn't just moral puritanism, it's for good.

Promiscuous sex and many partners irreversibly negatively influences a person's pair-bonding ability at a chemical level, this destroys the family unit and does not benefit the empowered singles and divorced 'pair-couples' we see today promoting this behavior.

Hastening the decline is not entertainment, I wish people would stop encouraging it for short term interests and look at the big picture.

View on HN

Teaching safe sex is what prevents disease and unwanted children, not moralizing about sex.

There are plenty of well adjusted people who are either in open relationships or have no desire to be in relationships. Being kind and treating people with respect is what strengthens families.

- A condom won't prevent diseases or unwanted children.

- Open relationships do not strengthen "families".

The fact that you believe that casual sex affects pair bonding ability at the chemical level, but you don't believe that condoms prevent the spread of STIs and pregnancies is concerning.

Not all STD's need to contact a mucous membrane to infect

There is a 100% guaranteed way to prevent an unwanted child, in half of the US states at the very least.

Condoms (and other forms of birth control or protection) seem much more effective than conservative morals at preventing diseases and unwanted children. Take a look at teen birth rate [1] (as a proxy for unwanted or at least unplanned pregancies) and HIV diagnosis rates [2] per US state. The trend seems pretty clear: conservative, religious states do worse at these metrics than liberal, more secular states. There are of course more variables than that, but at least religion and traditional family values don't seem to be helping very much.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbi... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/257734/us-states-with-hi...

If there's anything affecting reproduction rates, it doesn't seem to be permissive sexual norms but rather poor economic and professional conditions that preclude the establishment of a family, in conjunction with the general decrease in fertility when a region passes a certain point of development i.e. a child becomes a financial burden as opposed to an extra pair of hands.

Ironically, the issues you list would be best solved with a professional prostitution industry and regulatory committee running the show.

As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet. "This idea feels right, and is consistent with my ideology, so it must be right".

"As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet. "This idea feels right, and is consistent with my ideology, so it must be right"."

Why do you think that? There are objective reasons for parents sticking together - success of the child and the economics of being in a pair tend to positive things. Although I will say that I don't know of any resources that investigate these on things like polygamy - they focus on the common stuff like marriage, divorce, and sometimes remarriage.

Sex isn't what makes people partners...

True. But given the practicalities it tends to be highly intertwined with a few exceptions.

> As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet.

I just want you to know your reply with the bible pamphlet thing was really stupid.

To address you directly: It's scientifically proven, check out Oxytocin and see about the pair-bonding facilitation it does.

I'm not a dummy, but today you spoke to me like one. You won't always get someone to re-engage you, and that won't always be because you're right, sometimes we're just too disgusted to risk further entertaining your disrespect.

I think you're replying to the wrong person.

giantg2 is a swell person, I wrongly maligned them in this comment thinking the quote they posted was their own words in a flippant context.

I wholeheartedly apologize to giantg2. However for the record, other guy above can beat it.

You do realize that's a quote, right? Like look at the parent of that comment.

Ah, you are correct, my mistake. I owe you one. I have edited my comment with an apology, out of respect and as penance for the slander.

That Oxytocin is produced through MANY interactions that are not sex.

Condoms exist. Marital sex also makes unwanted children, I don't see why you declare this a property of "free" sex.

The second paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that gets parrotted by conservatives. People have been and will continue to have casual sex, and society is, and will be doing fine.

Your last sentence reveals the real reason you're against casual sex.

I'm sorry, but all of your points are demonstrably false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com