>>55071200You -- originally -- were talking in the context of morals. Morals are usually developed, formed and honed by society a person (note the word person -- persona -- here, it is important) lives in. As for your statement about morality:
> morality existed in cavemansMay be. It is actually subject of a heated argument to this day. But one thing a lot of people agree is that even if proto-human had morality, it would be wildly different from each other, there is no one OBECTIVE, TRANSCENDEND morality created by cosmos all people adhere. That was your implication - "unprotected sex is bad, everywhere, for every possible intelligent life out there"
>>55071200>having sex with a plastic bag around your dick makes you a spiritual Elagabalite.I agree, but for different reasons (purely physical and logical).
If you claim your opinion and position does not stem from religious dogmates and/or odd/shut-in family values forced onto you, then sexual revolution failed. See, this is why I'm completely against gatekeeping sex and knowledge of it children (but you cant drive this argument properly without some tranny faggot screaming his hypocritical lungs out - PEDO) - it skews their worldview and understanding of sex. Se becomes something mythical. Sure, sex is human's prime time and there almost nothing that beats it in terms of value, but in the end of the day it just one layer of intimacy - physical one. Sex is not different from hugging or kissing. It just physical intimacy. You dont call people immoral when they hug in gloves. Or kiss without being married (well, religicucks do). Think of these in the same way you think of coffee, tea and water - all are liquids with different purposes.
So no, I dont consider act of sex immoral on its own. The fallacy here when you begin grasping at straws - but what if it is forced sex/rape? Then it is immoral, no? In this case it is abuse that is immoral, not the pure sex.
> pre-martial sexAgain, mostly popularized by religion
