Premarital Sex And Promiscuity

Premarital Sex And promiscuityThis essay will be discussing the topic of promiscuity and premarital shake from both Ellistons and Punzos theories. fit in to Punzo on Premarital sex activity, it is for two people to gestate prosecute in a internal contact/intercourse without having the full inscription alone on the other hand, promiscuity according to Elliston it is to have sex with objet darty different people without having any consignment. When comparing both, Punzo is seen as the conservative while Elliston is seen as sustenance casual sex. Punzos supposition is when two people argon together having sex they both must be engaged in a deep commitment amid the two people. On the other hand, Elliston is arguing that sexual intercourse doesnt require any thoughts or strong consideration with any commitments since it is non that broad of a deal.According to Elliston promiscuity is seen as free love, where you can just meet someone and starting to fall(a) in love with th em. With this definition, it might be easier for some to understand it, as having freedom. It can alike be recognized as having recreational sex, having sex just for fun. When the word fun comes with anything, it will be seen as attractive and easy going. Elliston has created a definition himself that better defined promiscuity. Promiscuity is defined as sex with a series of other adults non directly related through conglutination and with no commitments no promises of warmheartedness, sexual exclusivity in future (Elliston 144).Elliston also stated that for those who just want to get others in bed to have sex by lying, exploiting, and deceiving or something close to it ar wrong. It is seen as wrong because it breaches the ethical principles that we all learned as a child, which is non to lie. When someone is lying about everything just because they are trying to get someone in bed to have sex with them, it is seen as very unethical. Promiscuity is seen as to the advantage of males and to the disadvantage of females because it is unbowed that males do non have anything to lose while females will lose their virginity and at times their love. It has become exploitive woman would get social blame but man would get sexual satisfaction. Promiscuity is not actually wrong but it is the triplex exemplar that is in places where woman is at a disadvantage in comparison to man. Promiscuity can not be defined as wrong all the time the charges that it necessarily violates generally accepted a moral principle is false. (Elliston 146). Elliston is saying that the double standard that should be remove but not the promiscuity, since it is ceaselessly seen as a disadvantage for woman. The female involved might not feel the same as to being cheated or being used for the man to have their sexual satisfaction but it might be the woman who is using the man to satisfy herself.Sex is just a body lyric in the form of body interaction between the two people that are willin g to interact and it leads to pleasure. It also has a deep meaning bottomland it. According o Elliston, sex is more than thrusts and moans, caresses and sighsjust as verbal style has a dimension of meaning beyond phonemes and morphemes, so body talking to has a significance beyond the intertwining of two bodiesPromiscuity has instrumental value in that it can facilitate the mastery of one kind of body languagesexual body language is learned through sexual interactionexperiences enable an individual to develop a repertoire of gestures for communicating desire and affection and of decisive movements that clearly state intentions of love or amusement. People can be moved not provided by the things we say but also by the things we do-with them, for them, or to themdesire and satisfaction can be communicated not only through verbal exchanges, but also through a delaying look and an appreciative caress. To a shattered ego a physical embrace may express far more reassurance than its v erbal counterparts, and a embrace may convey 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 this quote, Elliston is saying sex is a part of body language and the more you practice it the better you will get. The skills that you get from promiscuity will wider range of people outside of marriage or committed-relationships. Usually a married couple would be seen as only one man is allow to have dinner with one woman, which is referring to only having sex with the partner and that is it, third party is not acceptable (traditionally). Elliston sees having sex with one individual at first before you decide to love that person or not. Pretty much he is saying having sex first will be a pre-stage of trying out whether the persons sexual skill or chemistry from sexual intercourse will help you decide to love this per son or not. Therefore Elliston is arguing that promiscuity should be allow and should not be seen as wrong because it is something for the two to try out and see if the chemistry is there.In Punzos view, sex before marriage or even having sex with no commitment is seen as wrong. Punzo has answered the question of is having pre-martial sex without any commitment wrong, with using Wilsons theory of sexual intercourse to compare it with playing tennis and Chessers theory of two people going to see movies together. Both Wilson and Chesser see it normal and there is nothing morally wrong about having pre-marital sex. At the same time, Punzo has dis jeerd with both of them stating that going to the movies or playing tennis with many people are just some general activities which anyone can encounter, but it does not necessary have to be the one you would have sex with, or have any sexual interest with. In Punzos view, sexual intercourse must be between two committed people, so having sex w ithout any sort of commitment is wrong. Punzo states that commitment is a must before sex, as one must agree to commit to a relationship before they can move on to a new level in their relationship, through having sex, the two gives themselves to each other in the way of trust, expressing ones mind, and feelings through the most intimate activity, sexual intercourse.Punzo see Ellistons blood between sex and dinning is a wrong example because dinning and sex are two different things, it is in an extreme that it has nothing to do with each other, dinning and sex has no connection at all. Dinning can be with any friends, or family members, and it does not involve any sexual contacts. Yes, dining can be with your spouse, partner but it can also be with someone else. Both eating and sex do give people satisfaction, but they are totally different from each other. Food is a need for people to survive but people can live with out sex. Ellistons theory is to have sexual intercourse with as many people as you can before travel in love, but Punzos theory is to be in love or have the necessary commitment before having sexual intercourse. The moral perspectives of both are totally different from each other. This is why Punzo would not agree with Elliston and vice versa.Ellistons argument has a defect to it, it is having sex with a number of people does not only increase the skills of ones sexual ability, but it also limits the important value of having the most intimate relationship with the other through sexual intercourse. I count we all know that having sex with the one we love is the most loving and special feeling of being complete as a whole. If one is engaged in a sexual activity with many other people and then stated that the one is now in love with their partner is not a rational theory, but it is also very confusing and unreasonable that promiscuity does not damage a committed relationship. Having sex without any commitment, and sequester oneself with uncomm itted sex is a view that may not be true. They can have sex without any commitment but they might do more about themselves. It doesnt mean they are isolating themselves just because they do not involve in a committed relationship. Punzos full commitment does not have a clear definition, does it mean to be in a legal marriage with legal documents, and so if the two are just case law couple then does that mean they are not legal? Punzo should have clear that term and have a better explanation of it. With the mutual arrest and respects towards each other with pre-martial sex, it is not going to affect the two negatively. It would not be harm if pre-martial sex will lead the two into commitment and onto future commitment, it would become a good thing. If pre-martial sex is happening then protection is needed to prevent any unexpected or unwanted pregnancy.In conclusion, both Punzo and Elliston has their pros and cons. Premarital sex should follow Punzos theory of sex, and they must i nvolve commitment, but not with full commitment. Punzo did not clarify what full commitment means, if it meant at the stage of being legally married, then those who are only engaged or soon to be marry couples should not be having any sexual interactions. Also promiscuity must be permitted only if no one is being hurt and lie to as a result of promiscuity. It is true that Ellistons argument of double standard needs to be remove because it is only seen as woman being the one that are at a disadvantage, but sometimes it is not the case, woman would be out to lie to man just to get money or any material that need from the man. Therefore double standard should be remove but not promiscuity. Also promiscuity is a good way to practice ones sexual skills and ability in the bed, it is true to the term practice makes prefect, it would suit this practice of promiscuity closely.