We accept

Issues Of Premarital Love-making And Promiscuity

This essay will discuss the problems of premarital making love and promiscuity of both Elliston's and Punzo's theories. Premarital gender (Punzo's definition) means two persons engaging in sexual intercourse without full commitment while promiscuity (Elliston's description) is characterized as to have sex with various people without commitment. In the comparison of both philosophers, Punzo is definitely the conventional theorist while Elliston is assisting casual making love with a number of people. In Punzo's theory, sexual activity, such intimate action, must require a deep determination between the two individuals. However, Elliston would claim that sexual intercourse will not require any deep thinking or concern of commitment as if it isn't a big package. How would Punzo react to Elliston's theory of promiscuity-to have sex with a series of people without purpose to any commitment apart from the work of sexual activity? So how exactly does Elliston support his argument that promiscuity should be allowed and under what conditions is promiscuity morally permissible? Other issues such as making love with someone one hope to love, sex with a friend, or recreational gender with an acquaintance is incorrect or not will also be included. All these issues will be mentioned in details with both philosophers' arguments and ideas.


Elliston defines 'promiscuity' with the elaboration and combinations of

the explanations of Oxford British Dictionary and Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary. "Promiscuity, matching to Elliston, the term has no descriptive content, but only emotive and/or hortatory pressureIt is to condemn a practice or person as promiscuous is simply to express emotions of disapproval, or issue a prohibitive "Stop!" This position makes an attempt to resolve the problem of meaning by restricting "promiscuity" to its psychological or prescriptive push. The Oxford British Dictionary defines "promiscuous" as: "without distinction, discrimination or order. " Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary adds: "engaging in sexual intercourse indiscriminately or with many persons. "Promiscuity, relating to Elliston, 'is too wide-ranging and begs the question accessible. For the promiscuous person obviously does draw some distinctions: typically he or she does not derive sexual satisfaction from a lover's footwear or copulate with a inactive body or a sibling. These would be more specifically called fetishism, necrophilia, or incest. Promiscuity may also be identified with "free love. " This persuasive classification may generate some to accept this sexual routine because independence, like motherhood, is an excellent everyone is likely to espouse. Promiscuity may be discovered with recreational sex-intercourse simply for the fun of it"(Elliston 142- 143. Despite the above explanation, Elliston created his own description of promiscuity that better suits his quarrels. "Promiscuity is thought as sex with a series of other adults not directly related through marriage and without commitments; no offers of affection, sexual exclusivity in future" (Elliston 144).

In Elliston's explanation of promiscuity, it must are the next 5 components:

I. Promiscuity wants copulation-its telos is sexual activity.

II. Repetition is essential-the pursuit of a new spouse must recur.

III. Both associates must be adults

IV. The few cannot be straight related throughmarriage.

V. Promiscuity is noncommittal sex. Elliston explains his objections to intimacy without determination would lead

to deception and exploitation by clarifying the personality of promiscuous individuals who would cause such results. "According to the popular prototype, promiscuous people are unfaithful and unreliable: they break assurances, say things that are not true, and use others for their own sexual gratification. If this prototype were true, promiscuity would indeed be wrong, because it would violate familiar moral rules: people are supposed to keep their pledges, tell the reality, and not deceive or exploit others" (Elliston 146).

People who only need to get others in-bed just to have sexual activity with the other by laying, deceiving, and exploiting, and similar serves, are wrong. It really is wrong because it violates the well-established ethical key points, not promiscuity. "The moral mistake is placed not in noncommittal love-making however in the lays, deceptions, and exploitation to which some happens to have recourse to be able to own intercourse. This defense is complicated by the fact that a two times standard is operative within large segments of world: men are allowed to "sow their outdoors oats, " whereas women are denigrated as "loose" or "fallen" for the same behavior. Promiscuity is to the advantage of males also to the downside of femalesit becomes exploitive in a more refined fashion: men obtain erotic gratification; women receive social condemnationit is not promiscuity that is wrong, but the two times standard that places promiscuous women at a downside in comparison to promiscuous mensince promiscuity cannot be been shown to be wrong in all cases, the charge that it automatically violates generally accepted moral concepts is false"(Elliston 146).

The above assertions from Elliston are saying that the 'double standard' should be removed, not the promiscuity, since it is the 'double standard' that sets female in a drawback situation to promiscuous women.

Elliston talks about his objections to gender without dedication would threatens personal mental security and development by using Bertocci's theory to support his argument. Matching to Bertocci, premarital gender is wrong by implication against promiscuity which threatens "personal psychological security. " He argues that the erotic demand outside of marriage demonstrates "a lack of self-discipline in people who cannot control their wishes, and fails to show value and factor for those on who the demand is positioned. Such undisciplined and inconsiderate behavior places needless strain on the relationship, intimidating to ruin whatever worth it embodies" (Elliston 147).

Elliston clarifies that Bertocci's understanding of "incoherent or irrational behavior is actually a self-conscious refusal to be directed by the traditional western norm which promiscuous people should not be faulted for failing woefully to regulate their activities relating to a process they reject" (Elliston 147). Elliston also agrees that promiscuity "entail inconsiderateness only if respect is defined in terms of the american norm is promiscuity automatically disrespectful. . . Acknowledging the other's freedom to engage or not engage in noncommittal sex demonstrates some degree of respect" (Elliston 147). Promiscuity threatens the worth of the connection (of the determined lovers) which will depend on what is really considered valuable; maybe it's pleasure, flexibility, and esteem which it should not and need not be jeopardized. Bertocci is convinced that emotional tensions and guilt thoughts that come up from violating the taboos against non-marital love-making corrode the relationship. The act of promiscuity is also considered risk and concern to the relationship or the devoted relationship.

Sex is body gestures through the proper execution of bodily connections of two people that causes pleasure, but also has more in-depth meanings behind that; according to Elliston, "making love is more than thrusts and moans, caresses and sighsjust as verbal words has a dimension of indicating beyond phonemes and morphemes, so body language has a relevance beyond the intertwining of two bodyPromiscuity has instrumental value for the reason that it can assist in the mastery of one kind of body wordssexual body language is learned through sexual interactionexperiences enable someone to develop a repertoire of gestures for communicating desire and passion and of decisive motions that clearly express intentions of love or leisure. People can be moved not only by the things we say but also by the items we do-with them, to them, or to themdesire and satisfaction can be communicated not only through verbal exchanges, but also by using a lingering look and an appreciative caress. To a shattered ego a physical embrace may share a lot more reassurance than its verbal counterparts, and a kiss may express desire more eloquently than pleas or poemsThe observance of this etiquette is an acknowledgement of the selfhood of the other. The acquisition of it is one of the opportunities promiscuity provides"(Elliston 149). Based on Elliston's statements above, promiscuity in the "sex as a body gestures" will improve one's 'dialect' skills through the methods of promiscuity with a variety of sexual functions with a wider range of individuals outside of matrimony or committed-relationships.

The point of his analogy between sex and eating out are both appetites whose satisfaction is socially controlled (Elliston 150). As married couples would be observed in the views of the society as one man is merely allowed to dine with one woman; which is referring that eating with only 1 person means that in a relationship, both of the lovers are (usually) only permitted to have sexual activity within themselves and no third party is suitable. Since making love and eating out both satisfies one's appetites and while eating can be accompanied by zero to numerous people, then masturbation (by itself) and making love with an increase of than one person should be allowed with different sex positions or styles. Kitchen with a number of menu alternatives or making love with an increase of than one person will increase the variety of choice that may also improve "the spice of life"; therefore, one will not be bored to death of the having the same meals or erotic experience through repetition. The results of the above changes of menu or sex partners would ensure to enhance sex lives physically and psychologically (meaningful). This practice of "promiscuity has widened the proper execution of sexual tendencies from mere physical connections for pleasure to a form of corporeal dialogue" (Elliston 150).

Elliston made his existential defense of promiscuity by studying Heidegger's theory to sophisticated and make clear his argument of authentic sexuality as an existential security of promiscuity. (150). Authentic sexuality, in Elliston's explanation, "takes a similar openness to others. Commitments are changes that bind us to some and excludes us from others, blinders that thin down the field of interpersonal praxis to a privileged one (monogamy) or few (camaraderie" (Elliston 150). So to extract a number of facet of the 'individuals personality' involves a wide range of networking and cultural connections (in this sense, interpersonal means sexual connection). To increase healthy erotic development, you need be open to various erotic aspects of 'social life'. Furthermore, "promiscuity provides this openness through independence from mental and sexual dedication" (Elliston 151).

According to Elliston, making love with a person first is compulsory before making a decision whether to love that person or not; quite simply, having sex first could be the pre-stage of whether that person's intimate skills or chemistry through sexual intercourse would allow someone to make a decision whether to love this person is possible or not. Therefore, Elliston agrees that promiscuity would work or should be allowed because you can have sexual intercourse with numerous others to be able to build a profile of sexual skills and experiences which would boost the harmony of one's intimate gratification in his/her marriage. For example, sex with many others that isn't the partner would increase one's skills and expertise in sexual experience, the other may use such increased knowledge and skills to meet his/her beloved partner to a higher extent; therefore, it would lead to more comfortable erotic experience in the matrimony which would also satisfy both spouse's sexual desire and increase love affections for just one another. Having sex with numerous others, one will know the perfect person he/she would find compatible to commit with and have making love with love would cause them to a higher degree of satisfaction of not only physically, but also mentally; sex with somebody who one is in love with and start person's understanding, understanding and acknowledging one's complete personal, one would become more complete and satisfied as a 'full person'.

Elliston would feel that having sex with someone 'one hopes to love' is ideal because sex with that person with pre-mindset of wishing to love him/her would improve the mental satisfaction; so making love with that person would actually give one a clearer view of whether to essentially love that person or not. It is because one has already experienced the most personal contact, sexual intercourse, with that person and you might acknowledge the feasibility of loving that person or not over time. Recreation sex with an acquaintance, in Elliston's view, would be ideal but as long as both parties have the mutual knowledge of whether commitment is roofed or not. Therefore, recreational gender or any sexual encounter should be allowed so long as the act does not violate the ethical principles; no one is or should be deceived, misinterpreted, or have sex under the determination of lays.


Sex before matrimony or gender without determination is wrong in Punzo's

opinion. Punzo answered the first question of 'is pre-marital intimacy without commitment wrong?' by using Wilson's theory of 'erotic intercourse' to equate to 'playing rugby' and Chesser's theory of two people involved in premarital intimacy has no difference looking at to heading to see films together. Essentially both Wilson and Chesser find it normal and little or nothing morally incorrect about premarital intimacy. On the other hand, Punzo disagrees with both of them that 'it is the acquisitive identity of our society that has blinded us to the distinction between the two activities' (Punzo 118). Going to the films or playing tennis games with many others are general activities that everyone can encounter; it generally does not necessary have to be the same individuals who one would engage in sexual activity with. However, sexual activity, in Punzo's view, must be only between two determined persons; therefore, gender without determination is wrong.

In Punzo's debate of existential integrity is discussed by his assertions below:

"It is the unchaste one who is separating himself from his sexuality, who is willing to exchange human bodies as one would exchange money for tickets to a baseball game-honestly and with no commitment of self to self. The sexuality of man sometimes appears as a fundamental element of his subjectivity. Hence, the chaste man rejects depersonalized sexual relationships as a reduction of man in his most personal physical being to the status of an thing or pure instrument for another. He will not freely make of himself in his bodily existence something to be paid to another's ownership, nor will he ask hat another treat his own body in this way. The full total physical intimacy of sexual intercourse will be an expression of total union with the other home on all levels of their beings. Seen out of this point of view, chastity is taking care of of man's attempt to attain existential integrity, to simply accept his body s a aspect of his total personality"(Punzo 119).

Punzo agrees that intimacy entails reveling oneself psychologically to the other in a manner that is possibly self-, or life-, altering because determination is crucial before intimacy. Through love-making, two people give themselves to one another in the areas of trust, expressing one another's mind, emotions and affections through the most close activity-sexual intercourse. Although, Elliston agrees that love-making includes reveling oneself psychologically to the other in a manner that is probably self-, or life- altering (in the foreseeable future sense), but his theory is at a smaller serious level; in the first level, one only provides itself physically to many possible lovers, then he/she will find a person that works with to commit with and then gives see your face all his/her psychological self.

Punzo's view of Elliston's analogy between intimacy and eating is a faulty analogy because dining and sex are different in an extreme it has little or nothing to connect both as though they are the same in conditions of moral and cultural aspects. Dinner can be with any or numerous others that will not involve erotic intimacy while making love is the most special activity that must definitely be encountered with one's most special person (spouse). Eating out (eating) and love-making provides people satisfactions, but these satisfactions are totally different; food gives people satisfaction of food cravings, while sex provides people a deeper intimate interconnection of two people's bonding; this satisfaction occurs to improve the close (passionate) personal connection. Elliston's theory is to have sex with one or many others before love exists, while Punzo's theory is to get love or determination before sexual activity. The moral perspectives of both philosophers are totally complete opposite in this perspective; therefore, Punzo wouldn't normally agree with Elliston's analogy of love-making and dining because it violates his own school of thought.

Evaluation and original position:

A defect of Elliston's arguments or views is that the huge benefits of

having sex with some persons is really not only increasing the skills of one's sexual capability, but also diminishing the value of the specialness of "the most personal activity of sexual intercourse". As everybody knows that making love with someone (only 1 person) that we love is the most fantastic sense of being complete as full folks with the one we love (spouse or loved one). Participating in intimate activities with an assortment of individuals and then professing to be in love with their spouse is not really a rational theory; it is also confusing and unreasonable that promiscuity will not damage the determined relationship. It really is hard to comprehend or picture "how you can love a person much that he/she would still have sex other folks?" Maybe the excuses would be to increase or increase the intimate skills or capabilities to gratify one's favorite through outsourcing, however the real reason is to gratify one's ego to be better or the best at that activity. If such ego is more important, then sex with anyone would increase one's satisfaction and it generally does not need to be with love. Therefore the value and specialness of experiencing sex the dedicated one would decrease; since he/she should it with a whole lot of others, you can prove that making love with the partner is better or more special?

Sex without full dedication, one alienates oneself through uncommitted intimacy; this view may not be completely correct, one can have sex without full commitment but he/she may find out more of oneself-it will not always alienate oneself just because one does not have the full commitment for the other person. A flaw of Punzo's affirmation of "full dedication" is not clarified; what is full determination mean? Does indeed full commitment need to be a legal documents that shows two persons are committed or common-law lovers are not considered fully devoted? Dedication can be personal views; for example, several that is only dating nevertheless they have the hope to marry one another in the foreseeable future. Does their proposal of sexual activity consider "without full commitment?" Punzo should clarify his meaning of full dedication because differing people have different point of view based on the word.

Punzo's school of thought is more sensible in that making love must involve dedication sooner or later. "Sex union is not simply a union of organs, but is as intimate so that total a physical union of two selves as can be done of achievemen"t" (Punzo 118). When having sex with a person (naturally with commitment), one is unquestionably presenting his/her most intimate expression and thoughts that you might not normally show to any other folks.

Under the conditions of common understanding and value that pre-marital sex won't affect the other person negatively, but to market and increase the harmony of the two persons' romance. If pre- marital intimacy involves the goal of future determination, such as relationship, it might be ideal. If pre-marital gender is allowed, then coverage such as pregnancy control must be involved because unsafe sex is not attractive and it would be considered as a negative impact to the lovers. The above arguments count on the prescription of understanding and value of both persons; concerns to avoid harms such concerning prevent unsafe sex and pregnancy would not destroy the building blocks these are building. In addition, it promotes future harmony between those two such as spending so much time to create their own future or take up a family. Other moral rules could be the friends and family's perceptions of how they perceive pre-marital sex; if indeed they think it is morally undesirable or degrading the traditional value of gender, then it could cause pressure and limit the lovers' activities.


In bottom line, both philosophers have their benefits and drawbacks.

Premarital intimacy should follow Punzo's theory of sex and must involve commitment, but not necessarily 'full determination'. If 'full determination' means at the level of relationship, then engaged lovers or ready-to-marry couples are not really under his theory of 'full determination'. For example, these committed couples whom take part in the action of sexual activity should not be consider immoral. Furthermore, Punzo's declaration of two person's "union is not simply a union of organs, but is as intimate so when total a physical union of two selves as is possible of success" holds true; engaging in sexual intercourse two persons isn't only giving each other their physical selves, but also psychological selves.

In addition, promiscuity must involve all the five components and really should be permitted only when no-one is deceived or harmed therefore of promiscuous works. Furthermore, it holds true that Elliston's debate of 'double standard, ' that places downside to promiscuous women, should be removed and not promiscuous. Moreover, promiscuous works are good routines to boost the erotic skills and capacity; it holds true that the word of 'practice makes perfect' would suit the function of promiscuity.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment