If you could have sex without consequences would you?

Question

no disease, no pestilences, no hurt feelings, no broken homes, no enervation, no pain, etc, etc, etc.

If none of the above listed and other consequence of pleasures of sex, would you do it?

Then think about this one. If no consequences to sex, would immoderation be so immoral? These are question of pure thought and try not to be so moralistic

Answer 1

Absolutely YES – especially on the assumption that I am able to bring pleasure to the lives of other people in the process. Consider a parallel question: If you could bring joy to the lives of other people without negative consequences, would you do so? Or this: If you could bring joy to the life of a complete stranger without risk of negative consequences, would you do so? Notice that adding "complete stranger" to the question adds an interesting twist. Also notice that in most of the answers given so far, people are immediately assuming that sex is about just their own pleasure. Why is that? I believe that the equation "sex = sin" has so deeply poisoned the minds of most Americans that they are virtually incapable of thinking holistically about sex. For many people, the knee-jerk reaction to your question is to immediately find some rationalization for still not having sex, rather than considering all of the pleasure that could be brought to people's lives.

Of course we will need to address the notion of "empty pleasure" – which is a major theme in several of the answers given. First of all, I think that almost everyone enjoys a certain amount of "empty pleasure" in their lives – watching a favorite TV show, playing a video game, eating a candy bar – pleasures that have no meaning or sense of fulfillment beyond the immediate joy of the moment. Too much of this sort of things leads to an overall empty life, but what is wrong with a little trivial pleasure so long as your life is otherwise fulfilling and meaningful? But in any case, I want to press a deeper point. Assuming that I am bringing pleasure to another person, I can't imagine that sex could ever be purely a empty pleasure. The key, once again, is bringing pleasure to another person's life. If I thought that the other person was not enjoying herself, then my own pleasure would be empty (or nonexistent), but so long as everyone involved is enjoying each other's company, then as I see it, the pleasure is never truly empty. Why should it matter that it doesn't lead to a long-term relationship? On what basis could we say that longevity is the ONLY criteria for a good or meaningful experience? And why should it even matter if I am having sex with a total stranger? On what basis could we say that only people who know each other well can bring each other meaningful joy?

Suppose I see a random person on the street who seems sad and lonely. Suppose I give this person a hug and this cheers him or her up for a while – perhaps this random act of kindness from me (a total stranger), even though it is just a fleeting experience – makes this person feel like there is hope for joy life. Maybe it just helps them get through a rough period in their life. Is my action meaningless or unwholesome just because I didn't know the person, and never saw them again? I don't think so. In my view, giving someone – even a complete stranger – a warm hug is never an empty pleasure. And sex, for me at least, is like the pleasure of a warm hug multiplied by a hundred.

I think a central problem with sex is the idea that in giving pleasure, the giver is also getting a great deal of pleasure. For most people this seems to "taint" the experience – as if my own pleasure somehow devalues the pleasure I am giving to the other person. Why is this the case? I admit that it does add a major source of possible self-deception. I can always wonder whether I am really concerned for the other, or am I really just doing this out of my own selfish desire? But suppose that you can be reasonably assured that the other person is enjoying themselves? Some people would still feel guilty or tainted. Why? It goes back to the sex = sin equation that has been drilled into us by so many messages in our culture. The mere fact of my own intense pleasure makes the experience seem "dirty" or "degrading" in some way. Now this is interesting. In general we are not offended by people feeling intense happiness in life, but somehow SEXUAL pleasure always comes with additional requirements – marriage and monogamy, for example. Why? It's a long story, but the bottom line is that men have made it that way because over the millenniums they have wanted to control female sexuality. Our forefathers were so successful in this endeavor that even today most people immediately associate sex with sin (even if unconsciously) and immediately think of sex in terms of their own pleasure, even though we consciously proclaim that we want to please others. If pleasing others was really of prime importance, then casual sex would be no more offensive than giving a warm hug to a lonely stranger on the street. But our compassion for others is not really what is of prime importance to most people. The true underlying motivator is fear of our own joy, fueled by the equation of sex = sin. People are pre-programmed by patriarchal culture to feel degraded by their own sexual pleasure, except in the very limited context of marriage/monogamy, and it is THIS feeling that is truly of prime importance for most people when they read your question – not the thought of how much pleasure they could bring to the world – like warm hugs to friends and strangers multiplied by a hundred.

Answer 2

Good question!! Provokes deeper thinking... thank you!

I think, boundless, unrestricted and 'pleasure only' sex would certainly lose its charm....
that is the great enigma human mind is. 'No risk, no gain' may be a commercial norm, but it fits wonderfully to all aspects of our life as well.... controlled risk is an expression of our 'self', certainty without risk would dilute our self to impotence or powerless entity.
In such hypothetical situation, sex would not have the power to make us immoral... it would become immaterial.

Answer 3

Absolutely. I also think that a more appropriate question would possibly be "Why WOULDN'T you?"

So many people are closed-minded when it comes to sexuality & sexual experiences. I just can't personally see any reason NOT to have sex without any of its potentially negative consequences :)

Answer 4

Interesting question.
My first reaction was "Yes, of course I would!!"
But then I got to thinking that forbidden fruit tastes so much sweeter...
So would it take the thrill away if you removed the consequences?
But then, I have s3x with my partner without all of those consequences, and the fruit still tastes sweet...
Geez... I'm going cross-eyed...

Answer 5

But if there are 'no consequences' what about the 'consequences' like physical pleasure? It's the consequences that make it attractive, as well as dangerous.

Answer 6

No.
If sex were so disconnected to
feelings, it would be pure lust.
No emotion; no connection;
just gratifcation! I'd rather have this connection grow with someone I know well, with a relationship that is able to grow.

Answer 7

I absolutely would. Of course I don't consider the consequences now so it wouldnt really change much for me...

Answer 8

I try to every time I meet a new partner, but so far there's always something that happens , so YES , if I could I would

Answer 9

Sounds a lot like Brave New World. I don't think I could, what would be the point then?

Answer 10

Yes I would have sex if there were no consequences.