One night poll

[ewx]

Apropos of this article.

[Poll #701581]

Notes:

• If you're in a monogamous relationship then answer as if you were not - i.e. I'm asking about your opinion about the activity in general not about your current situation.
• "Morally wrong for everybody" means you think nobody should do it. "Morally wrong for you but OK for other people" means you'd think you were being bad if you did it but wouldn't necessarily think the same of someone else doing it. "OK for everybody" means you wouldn't think anyone, including yourself, was being bad for it (even if they themselves would).
• You can think it's distateful, or indication of something missing, without necessarily also thinking it's wrong.

Comments

[songster.livejournal.com]

That was me, by the way

Re:

[ewx.livejournal.com]

That seems like completely bizarre interpretation of what I said. I'm asking your opinion on the activity in and of itself; if people who've agreed to be monogamous sleep around with randoms then that's wrong because they're breaking their promises, not because they're sleeping with random people. (Assuming we agree that breaking your promises is wrong.)

Re:

[songster.livejournal.com]

But activities don't *exist* "in and of themselves", and nothing we do takes place in an ethical vacuum. The fact that you made an explicit point of saying we could assume we ourselves were single, but didn't make the same assumption for everyone else, thus ended up being a bit misleading.

Frankly, it strikes me that almost any activity can be rationalised away in the same manner - it's not that's morally wrong, it's breaking your moral code that's morally wrong. That's both a tautology and ridiculous.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Obviously any specific instance of casual sex will have more moral variables than whether it's casual sex or not, but I'm surprised to see you completely denying the validity of abstraction.